Alternatives to questioning during discussion sessions

[lostinidlewonder]

You've already made this point and I've already followed up on it.

Who cares?

I do not believe that a teacher can crowbar them into usage.

No one but yourself is talking about this.

The efficacy of how the teacher inspires thought lies in their overall organisation- not in how many boxes they tick from a superficial list.

Again no one but yourself is talking about this. So if you retract in horror at any list at all, then we should go through all the books ever written and cut out lists. Lets have a book burning event, get rid of all those nasty lists.. lol

It's a similar issue as with your pedalling list.

I am sure many people write things that you have "issues" with, this is no surprise. It also does not tell anyone else anything interesting, it also does not take anything away from the usefulness of my lists.

A teacher who already has practical experience of everything listed just gets on with teaching it when it arises- whereas a teacher who does not cannot turn anything around via a superficial description of the surface issue. It's like coming up with a list of the different parts of the body that footballer can act upon the ball with.

There are academics in this world a lot smarter than yourself who have the amazing capability to list things into neatly organized information. They do not do it with the aim that it is going to teach 100% of everything. You are really looking more and more stupid the more you complain that the list is not teaching you enough. THAT IS NOT ITS PURPOSE. But you keep going on talking about what it should do and how it should be improved and NOT PROVIDE ANY ELABORATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS YOURSELF BUT KEEP COMPLAINING RANDOM RUBBISH AS IF YOU ARE A KNOWLEDGE GURU WHO KNOWS IT ALL. You just make yourself look more and more suspect every day it is a great laugh.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'll write one final post to explain how discussion works. One party makes a point, the other listens and then follows up on it. Whether to express disagreement or agreement, this results in progress. If you start taking objective points personally, all hell breaks loose. I'm not remotely interested in the personally directed non-topical tangents in your post. I have made my views clear on the SUBJECT- directly clarifying where I disagree with you. If you can only respond with off-topic insults (rather than an objective illustration of where the value lies), there is nothing to be gained here. You say there is nothing to be learned from the list and that is my point exactly. It's a list for the sake of having a list- not a list that serves any valuable function with regard to teaching.

PS I never claimed to have magical answers. However that does not preclude me from pointing out that the list is a big red herring for anyone seeking them, or from referencing how much deeper the significant issues lie.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'll write one final post to explain how discussion works.

This is going to be great!

One party makes a point, the other listens and then follows up on it.

"Listen" is the keyword, unfortunately you can't listen which has been proven as you ask the same questions many times and have had to be directed to read past posts to answer those repeated questions.

Whether to express disagreement or agreement, this results in progress.

No. With your disagreement you attempt to undermine peoples contribution of knowledge and make it look like it is meaningless and useless. There is NO progress when you contribute your negativity.

I'm not remotely interested in the personally directed non-topical tangents in your post.

Then why don't you finally go away and stop responding to my threads? You have another motive, you just like to argue that is why you constantly respond.

I have made my views clear on the subject- directly clarifying where I disagree with you.

And where you have clarified where you disagree you leave us without any knowledge but just negativity.

If you can only respond with off-topic insults (rather than an objective illustration of where the value lies), there is nothing to be gained here.

Insults? Deary me, if I was insulting you many people would have notified admin. You are being treated better than you deserve. It is irritating to have someone constantly deny your stance isn't it? Well you will have to deal with that since you like to dish it out to others have a taste of your own medicine.

You say there is nothing to be learned from the list and that is my point exactly. It's a list for the sake of having a list- not a list that serves any valuable function with regard to teaching.

There is something to be learned from the list if you are a teacher who can draw from practical experience. Now go away this time for real.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is something to be learned from the list if you are a teacher who can draw from practical experience. Now go away this time for real.

Due to the personal insinuation about my teaching, I'll post once again to repeat one last time that everything listed occurs in my teaching. I just don't regard it as being significant- compared to the manner in which a teacher assesses and adapts to the situation, due to their sense of whether somewhere productive is being approached. The surface gestures are just the manifestation of that. I have nothing to say in response to the other comments, which are irrelevant to the topic and hence of no interest.

[lostinidlewonder]

Due to the personal insinuation about my teaching, I'll post once again to repeat one last time that everything listed occurs in my teaching. I just don't regard it as being significant- compared to the manner in which a teacher assesses and adapts to the situation, due to their sense of whether somewhere productive is being approached. The surface gestures are just the manifestation of that. I have nothing to say in response to the other comments, which are irrelevant to the topic and hence of no interest.

Translation:

Nyire: I don't think what you wrote means anything, it's useless.
Lostin: Well it doesn't matter if you think it is useless, that means nothing.
Nyire: !!!! how dare you!!! etc etc

[nyiregyhazi]

Translation:

Nyire: I don't think what you wrote means anything, it's useless.
Lostin: Well it doesn't matter if you think it is useless, that means nothing.
Nyire: !!!! how dare you!!! etc etc

I replied due to a very specific insinuation. I have not made one single accusation or speculation regarding your own teaching style. If you cannot conduct discussion in an objective manner without taking personal offence, that is a matter for yourself to deal with. However, when you take it from objective discussion to casting speculations about my own teaching, you directly cross a line between theoretical debate and explicit personal insinuation. I have not made a single accusation towards yourself and would expect you to have the courtesy to conduct debate in the same objectively (rather than emotionally) led manner.

[lostinidlewonder]

Not everything is about you. I have the right to state if you think my list is useless perhaps it is because you don't have the practical knowledge to understand them with. You however say you have the practical knowledge AND think the list is useless even though you use all of the items on the list in your own lessons. You are being silly and now try to play the victim.

[keypeg]

The important point made in this discussion a while back is the assumption that teachers with knowledge and experience are being addressed.  As a trained and experienced teacher in my own fields, I don't begin with devices such as the ones listed.  I begin with the learning goals that are to be reached, and then look at what steps need to be taken to reach them, and what tools are available and what activities on the part of the student will bring that about.

In the course of all of that, possibly discussion is one of the avenues.  Hopefully it will arise naturally as students have questions, make discoveries, have things to share.  I would stress the naturalness of this.  HOWEVER, in teacher training we are also given strategies.  The strategies should not take over.  They are a grab bag that you are free to use in a situation, and to adapt to the occasion at hand.

In general the list first rubbed me the wrong way and I will explain why.  In the public school system that I was once a part of, we are given formulas, often devised by entities who don't seem to believe that teachers have expertise and the capacity to think.  Somebody invents that "X minutes of discussion should happen per semester" and children are measured on the level of their "involvement", which actually gets graded, and this in turn involves visible things like how often the child raises his hand and "contributes" to the discussion.  What is missing is the intrinsic part.  Everybody is an actor and playing a role.  These are the kinds of formulas that we see.  What I described above is missing.

Maybe off topic, maybe not:  I was once among a gathering of homeschooled children aged about 7 - 10.  The parents had been able to get a session which is designed for class outings, so they were at a sewage treatment plant being taught about waste management.  Those giving the lecture were accustomed to teaching classes of "schooled" children.  This is where it really hit home how many "routines" and role-playing we actually engage in where everyone does his scripted thing.  Because these kids didn't know the script!  They were actively engaged in learning and used to doing it in a normal and direct manner.

So for example the teacher would say, "When we wash our hands we use.....? [pregnant pause]"  School kids would know that this is the cue for "Raise your hand - Give the answer that the teacher wants to hear so that she can continue the lecture."  The kids assumed that she forgot what she was going to say and waited politely for her to remember.  Parents whispered into their children's ear "She wants you to stick your hand in the air.  If she points at you, she wants you to say "soap"."  It struck me how inordinately silly this routine was, and how much it had always annoyed me.

[nyiregyhazi]

So for example the teacher would say, "When we wash our hands we use.....? [pregnant pause]"  School kids would know that this is the cue for "Raise your hand - Give the answer that the teacher wants to hear so that she can continue the lecture."  The kids assumed that she forgot what she was going to say and waited politely for her to remember.  Parents whispered into their children's ear "She wants you to stick your hand in the air.  If she points at you, she wants you to say "soap"."  It struck me how inordinately silly this routine was, and how much it had always annoyed me.

I'm not sure I follow your point here. What do you suggest as an alternative? Just state facts with no participation? Or do you mean to make it an explicit question such as "what do we wash our hands with?"? Although I sense that we agree that certain unnatural things should not be forced in, but simply allowed to evolve, this seems to be a situation where either you involve them or you don't. If you do, I don't see why it makes the faintest difference whether involvement is brought on by a directly stated question, or a statement that is heavily implied to be a question. This is just one of those superficial surface details. What matters is that there's an effort to involve and check that they are listening and taking things in. Sounds more like a case of shy kids to me- particularly considering the isolation of home schooling. I don't see any reason why a child would be unable to recognise the invitation. They would probably have been equally quiet in response to a question.

[mcdiddy1]

So for example the teacher would say, "When we wash our hands we use.....? [pregnant pause]"  School kids would know that this is the cue for "Raise your hand - Give the answer that the teacher wants to hear so that she can continue the lecture."  The kids assumed that she forgot what she was going to say and waited politely for her to remember.  Parents whispered into their children's ear "She wants you to stick your hand in the air.  If she points at you, she wants you to say "soap"."  It struck me how inordinately silly this routine was, and how much it had always annoyed me.

I think from the surface this mode of question may seem pretentious and very scripted but I think there is a good purpose of asking question this way. When the teacher ask a question like, "When we wash out hands..." expecting a response  the teacher may be trying to reinforce a concept that was previously discuss, assess the students of prior knowledge and seeing what to students remember or what needs to be re taught, and maybe for other students allow students time to recall the information and reinforce it by saying it orally for themselves.

 With one question, the teacher can achieve multiple goals and then direct the lesson in whatever direction the teacher choose to go through. If the students assume the teacher forgot, then this put the responsibility  of retaining content back on the students and not relying on the teacher to constantly lecture about correct procedures. I think it is silly if the children need a parent to remind them to raise their hand and it is not very helpful to give the child the answer without allowing the child to reach the conclusion by themselves. If the child does not know, that is instant feedback for the student on what that particular child needs.

I think your point about scripts however is valid because in teaching pedagogy there is such a thing as creating a "teaching script" and the responses of the children are predicted and planned. But this is a way of having a "lecture" to younger students to keep them involved in the lesson and keeping their attention going. In a more constructivist type of lesson like experimenting with magnets and shapes where students are learning at their own speed, in groups and thus is a more natural, individual way.

That is not to say using a script is bad especially when you have a group of students you do know and are unaware of learning disabilities, behavior problems , etc. Teaching by a script can be abused if over used but it is an important tool for teachers to have in certain situation where they have very specific goals to reach. Learning routines, structure, order, actions and consequence are all perfectly legitimate things to learn in classroom not in place of creativity and imagination but hopefully in combination.

[keypeg]

I'm not sure I follow your point here. What do you suggest as an alternative? Just state facts with no participation?

The scenario I described involved homeschooled kids aged 7 - 9.   I don't know if you are familiar with homeschooled kids.  Most of them are involved in their education in a real way, far beyond many schooled children.  Their participation is a real thing, with real interest and real involvement.  When there is a discussion then it is a real discussion by someone who is interested in the topic, wants to know more, has ideas - i.e. like real conversations.

What I described is role playing, and it is not a discussion.  The role playing goes like this:
Teacher says "We wash our hands with........" and then says nothing.
Children know that for this to go forward, they must stick their hands up in the air.  The teacher will point to one child who has his or her hand in the air.  The child cannot say what he thinks.  He has to give THE answer that the teacher is looking for, otherwise the scripted lesson cannot go forward.  The child has to say 'soap'.
Then the teacher says, "Yes, soap!  Very good!".... and goes on with the lesson.

This is NOT participation.  and it is not sharing one's actual thoughts.

I see the results of this when I tutor kids having problems in this or that.  I will ask a question in  a real, non-scripted way as we work, but the answer is with a question.  "Seven?"  Why?  Because the child is not able to say what he really thinks.  He has to say the scripted answer.  Therefore the kids turn off the ability to think.

Just state facts with no participation?

If you are teaching facts, then for goodness sakes, get on with it, and state the facts, yes!  And then, when the student knows what it is that you are actually talking about, the wheels can start turning WITH real participation.  If I have to try to guess what it is that the teacher wants me to say, then I cannot participate in a real way.  It creates the illusion of participation and involvement.

I have talked to students and adults who once were students.  Almost everyone hates this kind of scripting, and almost everyone wants teaching to be more direct.

[keypeg]

McDiddy, I read your explanation of these teaching scripts.  I have a teaching degree and experience in the field, so I've had my share of educational psychology.  On top of this I took advanced training after that, and also researched (visited, talked to teachers, read their literature) various alternative schools including Waldorf and other systems.  Finally, I experimented in one-on-one teaching and also listened to students of various ages.  I tutored kids having problems in school, found solutions, and also found the source of some of those problems.

Some 30 years down the road from all of that I question quite a few things that we were taught in pedagogy.  I know what these things are supposed to do.  I am far from convinced that they do them.  I do agree that they are handy tools to grab out of your toolbox when the occasion calls for it.

In the scenario I described that script was totally unnecessary.  To be honest, in classroom environments kids are often so apathetic that they have to be forced to pay minimal attention by asking them questions which they can only answer if they do pay attention.  In the lesson that I observed, the kids were very interested in what the speaker had to say.  They were homeschooled and so accustomed to moving quickly over a lot of material, and were puzzled about the slow pace and these weird pauses.  Most of the standard things that we are taught to do in pedagogy was necessary or appropriate.  Being back in a classroom environment but among homeschooled kids was a real eye opener for me.

[keypeg]

On the same topic:

I once had a conversation with a store clerk who was clearly highly intelligent but was a high school dropout.  He had not been able to cope with the school system.  We talked about schooling and lessons.  I gave a "sample lesson" about masking tape since it was a small hardware store.  First I presented the information factually and logically.  The second time I gave the information in the way we are trained, starting with "getting the students engaged" with a leading question about "things of interest" that lead to masking tape, and later doing the "soap" type of thing.  I can teach that way since that's how I was trained.  The poor guy cried out, "Yes!  That's what it was like!  It was a torture!"  

When I tutor kids I am confronted with textbooks that are set up in the same way.  The province I am in had an educational reform a decade ago, with a choice of two publications and most schools chose "the other set".  As homeschooling parent then, I chose its alternative.  The set usually used leads in with "interesting stuff", goes on to "exploration in an interesting way", does the "leading questions" bit, and finally 6 pages later, gives the dry facts.  The texts I chose give the facts from the start.

Without exception, kids I helped said "Why can't we get information presented in a clear straightforward manner?"  (of course, in kid language).  If you dug deeper, all these teaching devices were causing confusion.  The rituals prevented the kids from asking for help when they didn't understand something.  They had to function on two levels: the material they had to learn (which came secondary), and the rituals they had to perform but didn't really understand.  I finally concluded that the rituals ---- these "get them involved" devices --- prevented learning.

Again ... UNLESS they are used as tools when needed. 

[mcdiddy1]

McDiddy, I read your explanation of these teaching scripts.  I have a teaching degree and experience in the field, so I've had my share of educational psychology.  On top of this I took advanced training after that, and also researched (visited, talked to teachers, read their literature) various alternative schools including Waldorf and other systems.  Finally, I experimented in one-on-one teaching and also listened to students of various ages.  I tutored kids having problems in school, found solutions, and also found the source of some of those problems.

Some 30 years down the road from all of that I question quite a few things that we were taught in pedagogy.  I know what these things are supposed to do.  I am far from convinced that they do them.  I do agree that they are handy tools to grab out of your toolbox when the occasion calls for it.

In the scenario I described that script was totally unnecessary.  To be honest, in classroom environments kids are often so apathetic that they have to be forced to pay minimal attention by asking them questions which they can only answer if they do pay attention.  In the lesson that I observed, the kids were very interested in what the speaker had to say.  They were homeschooled and so accustomed to moving quickly over a lot of material, and were puzzled about the slow pace and these weird pauses.  Most of the standard things that we are taught to do in pedagogy was necessary or appropriate.  Being back in a classroom environment but among homeschooled kids was a real eye opener for me.

I think the debate over the academic abilities over homeschoolers vs the public school systems is not even close. Homeschoolers will always out perform students in the public school systems due to the individualized education that is geared toward them. The state of education in the public school is poor compared with other countries and if it was not poor there would not be so much reforming going on. While home school has its own challenges, the teachers had to deal with various learning disabilities, standardized testing, and behavior issues while attempting to attend to various learning styles.

My experience of private teaching vs group teaching is private teaching is much easier because you do not have to lower the standard in order for the slower learners to keep up with the rest of the class. I think teachers are able to teach public school and bring creativity, exploration, fun with high standards for all children is very limited and hard to train. I think students are lucky to have a choice to either choose private school or homeschooling because public school the way it is now has a number of problems, many of which are inherent to the way the system is set up.

[nyiregyhazi]

What I described is role playing, and it is not a discussion.  The role playing goes like this:
Teacher says "We wash our hands with........" and then says nothing.
Children know that for this to go forward, they must stick their hands up in the air.  The teacher will point to one child who has his or her hand in the air.  The child cannot say what he thinks.  He has to give THE answer that the teacher is looking for, otherwise the scripted lesson cannot go forward.  The child has to say 'soap'.
Then the teacher says, "Yes, soap!  Very good!".... and goes on with the lesson.

This is NOT participation.  and it is not sharing one's actual thoughts.

I really don't follow here. Who said it was? Nobody says it's about getting personal thoughts out. That can be done elsewhere. In the situations described, either they can make a statement or they can involve the students by asking for the answer. This keeps them listening and involved, where they might be more inclined to tune out if there were only statements. If a question has only one right answer, there's one answer that can be given. I don't think anyone overlooked that a question with a specific right answer does not provoke opinion. It's not supposed to call forth opinions. It's both to check knowledge and to keep students listening. It's just more interesting than when the teacher only gives a lecture, without involving anyone.

I see the results of this when I tutor kids having problems in this or that.  I will ask a question in  a real, non-scripted way as we work, but the answer is with a question.  "Seven?"  Why?  Because the child is not able to say what he really thinks.  He has to say the scripted answer.  Therefore the kids turn off the ability to think.

This makes no sense. Thinking is what leads to the correct answer. If the child "really thinks" something else- he's wrong! It's not about what you are supposed to say, but whether you know the answer or not. Your reasoning would not make any sense unless we were referring to an issue where there were different answers that could be argued as a correct, but the teacher were only willing to accept their own preferred answer. If it were all about individual thoughts we wouldn't need to teach any facts. But we do. Not everything is about opinion.

I have talked to students and adults who once were students.  Almost everyone hates this kind of scripting, and almost everyone wants teaching to be more direct.

If you want to check for a specific piece of knowledge, you have to be specific about seeing if it's there. If that's scripting, there's no alternative. You can't just be so general to ask if anyone has anything interesting to say for themself, all the time. To achieve the specific purpose you have a choice between reams of uninvolving statements and actually checking that the information is known- not between whether the child says what they are "supposed to" or what they really think. If it were about seeking opinion, then the questions would be more general. That can be done elsewhere. You are dismissing it based on things it is not intending to achieve.

[mcdiddy1]

On the same topic:

I once had a conversation with a store clerk who was clearly highly intelligent but was a high school dropout.  He had not been able to cope with the school system.  We talked about schooling and lessons.  I gave a "sample lesson" about masking tape since it was a small hardware store.  First I presented the information factually and logically.  The second time I gave the information in the way we are trained, starting with "getting the students engaged" with a leading question about "things of interest" that lead to masking tape, and later doing the "soap" type of thing.  I can teach that way since that's how I was trained.  The poor guy cried out, "Yes!  That's what it was like!  It was a torture!"  

When I tutor kids I am confronted with textbooks that are set up in the same way.  The province I am in had an educational reform a decade ago, with a choice of two publications and most schools chose "the other set".  As homeschooling parent then, I chose its alternative.  The set usually used leads in with "interesting stuff", goes on to "exploration in an interesting way", does the "leading questions" bit, and finally 6 pages later, gives the dry facts.  The texts I chose give the facts from the start.

Without exception, kids I helped said "Why can't we get information presented in a clear straightforward manner?"  (of course, in kid language).  If you dug deeper, all these teaching devices were causing confusion.  The rituals prevented the kids from asking for help when they didn't understand something.  They had to function on two levels: the material they had to learn (which came secondary), and the rituals they had to perform but didn't really understand.  I finally concluded that the rituals ---- these "get them involved" devices --- prevented learning.

Again ... UNLESS they are used as tools when needed. 

I think the teaching devices when over used in every lesson tend to come across as cooke cutter , copy and paste and insert correct answer in her are not the best way of teaching. However, other angle of just giving out the dry facts work particularly if the student is already interested in the subject and makes the connection to why this information is important in the first place. In my opinion the best lessons like science and math start with a real life problem and the student, through the guidence of the teacher, discover information that is pertinent to reaching a solution or multiple solutions. There are some students who could learn a particular lesson better by having the information read to them and making connections to what they have previously learned but the question is does this work for majority of children and will it work day after day.

I think comparing home-schooling to public school is like comparing apples to oranges in the fact the methods used in homeschooling is catered to the individual much more than public school could ever hope to be. I think a better comparison is how do excellent public school teachers approach lesson planning compared to the average. The excellent public school teachers tend to think outside of box, bring creativity, and fun to the lesson and students are motivated to go home and do homework to be prepared for the next day. I think the cookie cutter method of asking predictable questions and response is not the most effective way but neither is reading out of an encyclopedia the important information students need to know is the most effective way for all students.

Combining deep though provoking questions with interesting relevant content in a unique, organic way is one of the difficulties of great teaching. I think if you have a teacher with the right spirit, knowledge and skills , they can transcend any method of teaching and make it more effective than the mediocre ones.

[keypeg]

I think comparing home-schooling to public school is like comparing apples to oranges in the fact the methods used in homeschooling is catered to the individual much more than public school could ever hope to be. I think a better comparison is how do excellent public school teachers approach lesson planning ....

Is thread meant for classroom teaching of music, or private teaching?  Because if it is for private teaching, then surely homeschooling is a better model than institutionalized (classroom) education.  Also, the nature of lesson planning is way different for individualized and group lessons.  Which are you thinking of?

More later.

[nyiregyhazi]

Is thread meant for classroom teaching of music, or private teaching?  Because if it is for private teaching, then surely homeschooling is a better model than institutionalized (classroom) education.  Also, the nature of lesson planning is way different for individualized and group lessons.  Which are you thinking of?

More later.

Although instrumental teaching is closer to home-schooling, it stills comes back to the fact that there are times when you want to check whether a fact is known and there are other times when you are interested in a subjective opinion. If you omit fact-checking questions, the alternative is either excessively long speeches (with no involvement on the way) or an excess of randomly veering opinions- rather than direct learning of key principles. Neither serves to check what is sinking in.

If anything, it's all the more important in one on one. With a group it's basically just to keep the attention. With one student, it's more directly about assessing what they are understanding and retaining. It's a fundamental part of adaptive (rather than scripted) teaching.

[keypeg]

Although instrumental teaching is closer to home-schooling, it stills comes back to the fact that there are times when you want to check whether a fact is known and there are other times when you are interested in a subjective opinion. If you omit fact-checking questions, the alternative is either excessively long speeches (with no involvement on the way) or an excess of randomly veering opinions- rather than direct learning of key principles. Neither serves to check what is sinking in.

If anything, it's all the more important in one on one. With a group it's basically just to keep the attention. With one student, it's more directly about assessing what they are understanding and retaining. It's a fundamental part of adaptive (rather than scripted) teaching.

I agree with what you wrote, but I don't see the relationship to my question about group teaching (classroom in the school system) as a model, or individualized teaching (homeschooling).

[keypeg]

There are some students who could learn a particular lesson better by having the information read to them and making connections to what they have previously learned but the question is does this work for majority of children and will it work day after day.

When would you ever read information to students? My difficulty atm is that a) I don't know whether you are intending this thread for classroom teaching, and b) what similar backgrounds we may or may not share.  The above makes me think that maybe not.

I'm going to start with an actual (sorry: lengthy) example.  I'll follow it with the points I want to make. 

Ok, in classroom teaching, here is an actual science unit that I taught decades ago.

Subject: Science: Solids, Liquids, Gas - grade 2 (old curriculum 1980's)

Aim:  Students were to understand the concept that matter can be in the form of solids, liquids or gas and to have the concept of these three states; that matter generally expands when heated where it will also move from S to L to G, and contract when cooled and go from G to L to S. (water excepted since it expands when it turns into ice).

I did not read information from a book, and did not lecture.  Nor were there "leading questions" for the most part.

Material:  objects that can be observed (see below)

Objectives: the various items listed under aim

Length: roughly one week, with different planned activities each day (teaching units)

- We made popcorn, looking at the size before and after it was popped, and we got to eat it.  We observed THAT it got bigger.  I had to supply the information that water inside the kernels had turned into steam which burst the kernels.  An air popper doesn't allow steam to be seen.  But kids had plenty of experience seeing steam in their environment and could make the connection.

I made the general statement that things expand when they got hotter, and contract when they get colder.  The words "expand / contract" were part of the learned vocabulary so I made sure we used them a lot.  I pointed out telephone wires which get saggy in very hot weather, and more in a straight line in cold weather.  This got the kids excited because some had noticed this.  They were coming in weeks later with stuff they had observed, bursting to tell it.

The popcorn unit gave both the concept of expand/shrink, and states of matter from liquid to gas since we talked about water and steam - a familiar thing to them.

- For gas:
You can blow up a balloon and state that there is something inside which is making it expand, namely air.
There was an "activity table" at the back of the room.  Students were rewarded when finishing work with the right to use the activity table.  That table contained activities that reinforced things being studied, but because it was a "reward" they actually wanted to do more work. 

One activity was at small aquarium filled with water.   Instructions: Place a tissue in the bottom of a cup, put the cup into the tank upside down and push it totally under water.  See if you can keep the tissue dry.  Discussion later was that the air in the cup prevented water from entering.  The cup was not empty: it was filled with air which is a gas.

You children naturally run to adults, excited to show their discoveries unless this is discouraged somehow (too busy to listen etc.).  They were coming to me, telling their parents, looking around in the playground and at home.  This thing with the tissue in the paper is magic.  If you don't kill curiosity with endless testing which puts them under judgment and anxiety, children are naturally inquisitive.  When they DO get the school-required test, it's a piece of cake because of all the exploration they have done.
------------------------------
The points:
- The teaching was done mostly by creating experiences for children
- The experiences were linked to feelings of pleasure: eating popcorn, exploring things, discovering with no judgment
- You can observe comprehension through the types of experiments or strategies a child adopts, a look in the eye, the kinds of questions they ask, alertness, body language
- Children naturally want to share their discoveries with adults
- The thing that has to be controlled isn't getting them to talk, but getting them not to talk all at once since they got excited.  The same is true for adults, and the good workshop leader will give room for 10 minutes of babble at key moments.
- Reading out of a book would have killed all of that.  Besides, reading is a skill that kids need to acquire so why read for them?

I do not disagree with discussions or the devices toward them.  But I'm pointing out that a lot of learning can happen without the use of words.  (Guided) Experience is a great teacher.

I hope this makes it a bit more clear.

[nyiregyhazi]

I agree with what you wrote, but I don't see the relationship to my question about group teaching (classroom in the school system) as a model, or individualized teaching (homeschooling).

It was regarding your complaint about questions/inquisitive statements- in reference to both scenarios. I think they are all the more important in any form of one on one teaching (as well as being an important way of retaining attention when talking to a group).

[keypeg]

.

[mcdiddy1]

Is thread meant for classroom teaching of music, or private teaching?  Because if it is for private teaching, then surely homeschooling is a better model than institutionalized (classroom) education.  Also, the nature of lesson planning is way different for individualized and group lessons.  Which are you thinking of?

More later.

From what I understood, the thread was focused mostly on group teaching. From what I have been told there are some type of home schooling where students receive most of their instruction at home but have some group glass as part of a type of homeschooling-group. While I mostly ignorant on the innerworkings of home schooling for the most part I associate home-schooling more with private instruction rather than group teaching. My point is comparing private instruction to group instruction is going to be more favorable to the private teaching for obvious reasons and comparing both is unbalanced. Charter schools and public school are more similar than homeschooling is to public schooling.

I do not disagree with discussions or the devices toward them.  But I'm pointing out that a lot of learning can happen without the use of words.  (Guided) Experience is a great teacher.

I hope this makes it a bit more clear.

While I this is a great model of a lesson plan that allowing students to experience the lesson in a creative and hands on way, this was not what I was specifically talking about. My point was how the teacher teaches the lesson is what makes all the difference.

When looking at your lesson, one could say having the students make popcorn was a way of getting their attention and interest. Even though you are sure students had prior knowledge about steam and the effects of temperature, you may have to review so students can make the connection between what they already know. Then you had to supply information about the water in kernels and how they steam makes the popcorn pop etc. The thing is this roughly the same "formula" you criticized earlier : getting their interest, dry facts later etc. But this lesson is not only that, there are many elements that make it an effective lesson considering you had an idea what their prior knowledge is, hands on experience, rewarding students with a meaningful activity, logical order of progression etc. In the hands of another teacher who just imitates the structure but does not think about the purpose and what is effective, the same lesson could be dry and unmemorable.

I think that is a reflection of the teacher rather than the method. Guided practice although important and critical for students to make connections can be sabotaged by poor classroom management, unclear directions, or simply not knowing the students and what they are interested in.

By the way, where I got the "reading to student" was the statement you said earlier about dry facts. For me that translates into reading straight from the textbook, which some teachers actually do. I think the key thing is the information should presented in a logical way, yet interesting way much like the lesson you showed. Some teachers are either follow a teaching script to the letter without thinking of the logic and reasoning behind it , while some use no method what so ever but feel if the students write it down and it was said in class then it was taught. I don't think any method or single aspect of teaching is a magic formula to producing an effective lesson but if the teacher understands how people learn most effectively then the teacher can begin to get on the path of discovering the art of teaching.

[keypeg]

McDiddy, you are making a first wrong assumption.  Making popcorn or sticking a tissue into a glass and then immersing it upside-down underwater are not means of getting the students' attention.  That IS the learning and it IS the teaching.  It is especially appropriate to younger students.  Am I picking up an unquestioned belief that teaching consists of talking about things - words?  Is it possible that learning can happen with few words?  Can it happen through exploration, and opportunity for exploration?

In regards to facts:  There is no reason why a textbook needs to be involved.  What I was against, however, was the needless game playing - the talking in circles around a subject in order to make it "interesting".  This is getting into grades 10 & 11.  I just flipped through a math. book.  The chapters start with something "interesting" about ferris wheels, or space ships, or dolphins.  Then one chapter has the students figure out something to do with tooth picks. 

Finally about 4 pages in, it finally explains about sines and cosines, how to solve equations.  The kids want to get to the meat.  Their heads are spinning with the dolphins and toothpicks.  They want to be told: this is a sine  - this is a cosine - this is how we use it - for doing this.  Then they want to try it to see if they've got it.  It's not about reading something out of a book.  It's about being straightforward.

I think the key thing is the information should presented in a logical way, yet interesting way much like the lesson you showed. Some teachers are either follow a teaching script to the letter without thinking of the logic and reasoning behind it , while some use no method what so ever but feel if the students write it down and it was said in class then it was taught. I don't think any method or single aspect of teaching is a magic formula to producing an effective lesson but if the teacher understands how people learn most effectively then the teacher can begin to get on the path of discovering the art of teaching.

Totally agree.

Btw, I did think that the main focus would be individual instruction since for my part I also made an assumption.  I assumed that piano teaching was mostly private teaching and most people would be focused on that area.  There is no reason why that should be so.

[mcdiddy1]

McDiddy, you are making a first wrong assumption.  Making popcorn or sticking a tissue into a glass and then immersing it upside-down underwater are not means of getting the students' attention.  That IS the learning and it IS the teaching.  It is especially appropriate to younger students.  Am I picking up an unquestioned belief that teaching consists of talking about things - words?  Is it possible that learning can happen with few words?  Can it happen through exploration, and opportunity for exploration?

In regards to facts:  There is no reason why a textbook needs to be involved.  What I was against, however, was the needless game playing - the talking in circles around a subject in order to make it "interesting".  This is getting into grades 10 & 11.  I just flipped through a math. book.  The chapters start with something "interesting" about ferris wheels, or space ships, or dolphins.  Then one chapter has the students figure out something to do with tooth picks. 

Finally about 4 pages in, it finally explains about sines and cosines, how to solve equations.  The kids want to get to the meat.  Their heads are spinning with the dolphins and toothpicks.  They want to be told: this is a sine  - this is a cosine - this is how we use it - for doing this.  Then they want to try it to see if they've got it.  It's not about reading something out of a book.  It's about being straightforward.

Totally agree.

Btw, I did think that the main focus would be individual instruction since for my part I also made an assumption.  I assumed that piano teaching was mostly private teaching and most people would be focused on that area.  There is no reason why that should be so.

Well, learning may or not be occurring that is debatable. Popping popcorn or sticking a tissue into a glass can just be an activity for students with no logical though or connection being made. If you ask a student, what did we do to day and they respond we popped popcorn then the objectives of the lesson was not met. If the make the connection about heat and expantion with or without the teacher then you could assume learning took place. I agree that an experiment like this is very age appropriate and exploration is very important. But I think helping students make the transformation of an activity to an experiment with a learned conclusion is vital for learning to take place. Also, whether intended or not, students are going to be much more interested to do something physical with their hands than being lectured too. Having an attention-getting device is not inherently bad, it just need to relevant and unlike your description of the math book.

 I know exactly what you are talking about with the math book and I agree many of the examples tend to not make much sense and most students have to flip through it to get to the important information. The problem is the textbook makers tend to think teachers are not creative enough to come up with their own examples in their teaching and the makers become state sponsored textbooks. I agree teachers should be diligent about which textbooks they choose to use but unfortunately often times they do not have a choice in the selection of the textbook.

On the piano teaching front, there are many group piano classes so I tend not to be focused on just private instruction.

[keypeg]

McDiddy, I'm a trained teacher.  I assure you that my lesson plan had more substance to it than just popping popcorn.  First off you create a matrix for the entire school year: the inspector asked to see mine one year.  The various subjects of science interweave (planning) and other subjects are "integrated" (integration was the big word when I taught).  Next you have "units".  This particular unit was grade 2 Physics, subunit States of Matter (Solid, Liquid, Gas) and the principles to be taught.

You don't just walk into the classroom and say, let's have fun popping popcorn.  The activities are planned and guided in detail, the children are observed, you do have your follow-up written tests or little essays (a single paragraph with a picture at that age).  We were also told that each child had to be observed individually while teaching.  You are not guessing and wondering whether anything was learned.  There are many ways to ascertain whether learning is happening.  About the poorest way of all are tests.

Popping popcorn or sticking a tissue into a glass can just be an activity for students with no logical though or connection being made. If you ask a student, what did we do to day and they respond we popped popcorn then the objectives of the lesson was not met.

I don't know if you are familiar with the types follow-up activities we usually used.  I would not ask a student "What did we do today?"

Having an attention-getting device is not inherently bad....

These are NOT attention-getting devices.  This IS TEACHING.

[keypeg]

If the students assume the teacher forgot, then this put the responsibility  of retaining content back on the students and not relying on the teacher to constantly lecture about correct procedures. I think it is silly if the children need a parent to remind them to raise their hand ....

These were homeschooled children on a field trip.  They had never seen this teacher in their life, and there was no previous content for them to remember.  These children had never been to school so their parents were not "reminding" them - They were telling them about a ritual that they knew nothing about.  There was no content for the children to retain.

[keypeg]

First time round I was thrown since your comment came with quoting my question of McDiddy whether the topic was addressing classrooms - I tried to see the connection and there was none.

Although instrumental teaching is closer to home-schooling, it stills comes back to the fact that there are times when you want to check whether a fact is known and there are other times when you are interested in a subjective opinion. If you omit fact-checking questions, the alternative is either excessively long speeches (with no involvement on the way) or an excess of randomly veering opinions- rather than direct learning of key principles. Neither serves to check what is sinking in.

I agree about wanting to make sure about what is known and what is understood.  How you do that would depend on the teacher and the student(s) and the occasion.

[nyiregyhazi]

These were homeschooled children on a field trip.  They had never seen this teacher in their life, and there was no previous content for them to remember.  These children had never been to school so their parents were not "reminding" them - They were telling them about a ritual that they knew nothing about.  There was no content for the children to retain.

You describe it as a "ritual", but I have little doubt that even if worded as a statement, there would have been an inquisitive raising of pitch. It would actually be difficult not to imply inquisitive tone. If the children could not recognise that in any capacity (and were genuinely confused by the silence and unaware of how intonation signifies questioning) it would suggest that they are worryingly lacking in social development. It's not about ritual. It's about understanding the meaning of basic speech intonations. However, I severely doubt that this is an accurate description of the scenario. Most likely they were just shy (hardly surprising for kids who are not used to being in a large group) and not wanting to stick their necks out until prodded towards doing so.

I honestly do not understand what bothers you so much about this. In that situation you either give a completely one-sided lecture without any responses (which might as well be reading from a textbook) or you invite some participation- during what is still a process of passing on information, but a more attention-grabbing one. I don't understand why such a simple and natural means of sustaining attention might be a source of suspicion, or why you such assume such precise but seemingly improbable specifics from the mere silence of reticent children.

Would the speaker necessarily have even cared about hand-raising? Depending on the individual, they may even have been hoping for the children to simply respond to an obvious question by shouting back the answer. A ritual of the speaker, or a ritual passed on by parents not wishing their children to appear unruly?

[mcdiddy1]

McDiddy, I'm a trained teacher.  I assure you that my lesson plan had more substance to it than just popping popcorn.  First off you create a matrix for the entire school year: the inspector asked to see mine one year.  The various subjects of science interweave (planning) and other subjects are "integrated" (integration was the big word when I taught).  Next you have "units".  This particular unit was grade 2 Physics, subunit States of Matter (Solid, Liquid, Gas) and the principles to be taught.

You don't just walk into the classroom and say, let's have fun popping popcorn.  The activities are planned and guided in detail, the children are observed, you do have your follow-up written tests or little essays (a single paragraph with a picture at that age).  We were also told that each child had to be observed individually while teaching.  You are not guessing and wondering whether anything was learned.  There are many ways to ascertain whether learning is happening.  About the poorest way of all are tests.
I don't know if you are familiar with the types follow-up activities we usually used.  I would not ask a student "What did we do today?"
These are NOT attention-getting devices.  This IS TEACHING.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point is not to question the lesson plan or you're teaching of it. My point is merely there has to be a difference between doing an activity and actual learning. Any child can make popcorn, eat it, and not think twice about what process caused it to happened. Often times in classroom, this is what happens. Students do activities as if it is recess and teachers expect connections to be made by students but the children simply did not have the background to do it. I am not saying your lesson would lead to that just that making the bridge or connection for the student is the job of the teacher. While many children are naturally curious and inquisitive, it is not automatic that students will make the connections on their own.

Also we as humans are learning all the time. We are constantly reenforcing things we already know and reshaping concepts we have learned in the past.  Students can learn things from a teacher that is intentional or unintentional but students are always learning. My point is to say this is teaching and another method is not teaching I think is not totally true. There is a quote I heard once about technique saying there is no bad technique, only efficient and less efficient. Similarly teaching takes technique and skills and although one method may be stronger than one, teaching is still going on. It is possible to intentionally teach something, but students learn something entirely. Students may learn science is fun and logical or they may learn it is boring, dull and I am not good at it but you do not choose not to learn.

Of course there are multiple ways of assessment beside written test and I am sure you employ them but there are plenty of classrooms ( especially in music) where there is a great deal of activity and connections are not made and what was intended to be taught was not what students actually learned.

Also whatever you choose to label the anticipatory experiment is not really important. Some circles call it an anticipatory set or a focusing event or whatever. Your description of children leaving the classroom excited and curious about learning more is what important and is essentially one of the results you want from students leaving the classroom. If students do not pay attention they do not learn so you have to have some way of getting attention. Attention getting is a critical part of the teaching process. Like anything if it is misused, like you said it defeats the purpose and creates more confusion than helping.

[mcdiddy1]

These were homeschooled children on a field trip.  They had never seen this teacher in their life, and there was no previous content for them to remember.  These children had never been to school so their parents were not "reminding" them - They were telling them about a ritual that they knew nothing about.  There was no content for the children to retain.

Most children bring with them a great amount of common social norms that the teacher was trying to get them to recall. The question about was about washing their hands with soap, right? Surely homeschool or not, the children are aware of the ritual of using soap to wash their hands. This is a pretty common experience and the teacher may just be intending to remind them for whatever reason or to make a connection that had to deal with the information to be presented. Also raising your hand is not a ritual that occurs only in school but it simply a gesture to get attention. You may raise your hand if you are trying to get someone's attention across the street,a meeting, or a rehearsal. If students are not familiar with that process, it will not harm them in life to learn this gesture.

Also as students go on through the grade levels, I have found students are much less likely to raise their hand the higher the level. It is almost as if the curiosity and zest for education has been zapped from them and getting high schoolers to raise their hand is like pulling teeth. The elementary grades is the complete opposite and the enthusiasm is quite real and palpable. I think there are many things to blame for this lack of energy but I don't think learning a procedure is the cause. That being said, I do agree with your main point that in education there is a large amount of brain-washing and treating students like a cog in a machine and not like unique individual snowflakes they are. I agree with your premise that are multiple problems with public school, but there are even more egregious problems in the system than this particular example.

Also, home schoolers are not without their own problems. I was reading an article earlier about home some homeschooler tend to feel short changed on many aspects of their education with some not learning math beyond the algebra level. I think solving the education problems is much more inherent in the current system and it is rather difficult to solve.

[keypeg]

McDiddy, you had stated that the parents should not have had to tell the children to raise their hands.  I was pointing out that these were young homeschooled children.  They were totally unfamiliar with the convention.  If 10 people are at a gathering, and one of them speaks then the others listen.  The speaker may go on for 15 minutes telling a story and he trusts that everyone is capable of following his story for those 15 minutes.  At some point he may pause, and somebody might jump in and ask a question, or make a comment.  This is what these kids were used to.

The soap incident was for the purpose of highlighting a ritual, along with the ritual of raising the hand.  It was an unnecessary question otherwise I would not have noted it.  It is part of more ritual.  It didn't clarify anything.  It's one of these "ask children questions to keep their attention and keep them involved."  They didn't need such a thing.  They were already attentive and already keenly involved.  It is RITUAL for the sake of RITUAL that I am against.

The homeschooling parents were able to put together a number of such outings.  Very frequently were were told by our hosts (teachers in various fields) that they had never seen such attentive and involved students.  None of that malarky was necessary.  And maybe if the school system followed suit and stopped interfering with good teaching, we could have better results.  It's not by chance that a disproportionate number of homeschoolers are (former) public school teachers.

The reason this is coming together with homeschooling is that the rituals can be dispensed with.  The things you listed can be genuine tools, or they can become part of rituals.  I'd hope for the former.

[nyiregyhazi]

McDiddy, you had stated that the parents should not have had to tell the children to raise their hands.  I was pointing out that these were young homeschooled children.  They were totally unfamiliar with the convention.  If 10 people are at a gathering, and one of them speaks then the others listen.  The speaker may go on for 15 minutes telling a story and he trusts that everyone is capable of following his story for those 15 minutes.  At some point he may pause, and somebody might jump in and ask a question, or make a comment.  This is what these kids were used to.

The soap incident was for the purpose of highlighting a ritual, along with the ritual of raising the hand.  It was an unnecessary question otherwise I would not have noted it.  It is part of more ritual.  It didn't clarify anything.  It's one of these "ask children questions to keep their attention and keep them involved."  They didn't need such a thing.  They were already attentive and already keenly involved.  It is RITUAL for the sake of RITUAL that I am against.

Who says? Was every individual child hooked up to a mind monitor? And is there a logical reason why if people are listening they should therefore not be further involved via invitations to be answering questions? There's no possibility that a single child might have begun tuning out but been drawn in by some participation? I remain truly bemused by what you have against this. It's not ritual for the sake of ritual. It's a question for the sake of more direct involvement and connection with listeners. I think it would be downright rude for a speaker not to seek such direct involvement within that situation. Your disapproval honestly just conveys irrational annoyance- rather than any convincingly logical grounds for objection.

If we're speaking of natural discourse, the children should have recognised what should clearly have been perceived as inquisitive and shouted out an answer. There is no ritual here. There's a speaker involving the audience- as any good speaker should. Unless we know that the speaker insisted on hand-raises, the only ritual in evidence there is instigated by the parents.

[keypeg]

I am against ritual, not against "this" whatever "this" is.  Nier., in general you often seem to interpret posts and then respond to your interpretation.  I cannot answer for that reason.  What I observed was not a seeking of involvement.  It was an unawareness of the involvement that was already there, and the manner of presentation was ritualistic.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am against ritual, not against "this" whatever "this" is.  Nier., in general you often seem to interpret posts and then respond to your interpretation.  I cannot answer for that reason.  What I observed was not a seeking of involvement.  It was an unawareness of the involvement that was already there, and the manner of presentation was ritualistic.

I base things on logic. You clearly feel a more emotive response to this. But logically, the losses of removing the specific type of participation you object to are potentially substantial. The benefits of retaining them should vastly outweigh personal emotional annoyance. Even if there were no highly evident benefits, objection to 'ritual' is purely emotive- and ignores the specific functions that are directly served by calling for participation. The only logical alternative is exactly the same as simply reading out facts from a textbook- or a randomly disorganised chat that cannot convey structured information. When teaching facts, it is superior to involve. Involvement is not a ritual.

I suspect that we might agree on broader issues, but I really think you've picked a bad example. Perhaps you're referring to a case of someone performing good acts but simply doing it a bad job with them? If so, it's important to distinguish precisely what specifics were wrong with it- rather than to tarnish the good procedures that were spoiled by something else. You speak as if asking a few questions of a captive audience would be a dumb thing to do- which simply does not make the slightest bit of sense.

I also feel that you are guilty of the assumptive generalisations that you frequently complain about. Every child is different. You assume they will all be like yourself. I think you said something about kids having an inquisitiveness about trigonometry? Seriously? You think that applies to an average case? Anyway, just because you might have felt patronised or frustrated by someone asking a question with a blatantly obvious answer, that does not make it poor educational practise or an act without purpose. I remember well how enthusiastically kids would put up their hands, back in primary school- no matter how easy the question. You might have been inclined to listen regardless, but other kids listen a lot harder when they are sometimes invited to join in- no matter how blindingly easy the answer. Emotive personal responses to what is perceived as a silly ritual should not cloud assessment of broad practises.

[keypeg]

.

[keyboardclass]

I'm rather logical myself.  Nonetheless, most of your responses recently have been based on things you imagined rather than what I was describing or trying to say.  This isn't working.

That's being very polite - in my book it's lying.

[keypeg]

That's being very polite - in my book it's lying.

What is the lie?

[keyboardclass]

What is the lie?

When someone projects ideas you never expressed as yours.  It's not an innocent mistake - it's straw man stuff.

[keypeg]

People are complicated.  I wouldn't assume to know others' intentions.  Enough wrong conclusions have been made about me in the past in forums.   On the Internet if it quacks like a duck it might be a horse with a head cold.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm rather logical myself.  Nonetheless, most of your responses recently have been based on things you imagined rather than what I was describing or trying to say.  This isn't working.Saying what teachers want to hear in a ritualistic type of way .... which is what we have in classroom situations too often .... is not participation.  It is both non-involvement and non-participation masking as participation.  It is AGAINST understanding, it fosters non-communication, and it shuts down thinking. Have you had your hand at tutoring kids in public school grades, and undoing that type of damage, and if so, were you successful?  It is difficult trying to get these kids to even dare think for themselves, or to respond in an honest spontaneous manner.  They are continually trying to guess what I want to hear .... the ritual.

Your kids who enthusiastically put up their hands:  If they are interested in the subject, that is one thing.  If they are trying to get praise, then it is something else.

I'd be entertaining the idea that I've misread you- were it not for the fact that you so specifically reiterate all the things I disagree with quite so explicitly, in the above words. Once again, it's clear that you are speaking emotionally, and idealistically and with expectation that your own experience is universal. What you assert as if it were incontrovertible truth simply does not stand up to rational scrutiny. To go as far as to speak of kids as "wanting" to get stuck into trigonometry shows how far you have been missing the point. You cannot take a single mindset and assume it to be universal. You are falling into all of the assumptions you usually complain about.

Answering a question IS participation and specifically demands LISTENING. That you will not acknowledge this incontrovertible fact reflects on yourself- not kids in general. Kids who enthusiastically thrust their hands in the are kids who are listening. Would you have been listening anyway, with no easy questions on the way? Probably. But if you think the whole world works the same, you are lost in idealism that has nothing to do with pragmatic reality. Also, it doesn't matter if the kid is eager to please. That you comment on this aspect illustrates the extent to which you view this emotively and not pragmatically. It's not about motivation. It's about the fact that lessons designed to pass on facts attract greater attention when they involve questions and answers. Questions to test opinion do not play a role in passing on facts. They are a different issue. When doing a lesson to pass on facts the dichotomy is between a cold lecture and asking FACTUAL questions to keep the attention. That is not stilting opinion- and a kid who thinks before recalling a fact is doing more thinking than one who does not listen due to no calls for participation. You speak as if dealing in universal truths- which I find most surprising considering your general attitude. Exceptions to what you state as if fact are not even unusual- never mind unthinkable as possibilities.


Sneering at ritual (that was instigated by parents in the situation you described and not teacher) is just missing the point. You are not even suggesting alternatives. When a lesson is there to pass on facts, the choice is to involve fact based questions, give a boring lecture that involves no participation or allow the chaos of free opinion (which does not help to learn facts). Facts do not involve opinion, by nature. You're comparing apples with oranges. Learning a fact does not close down free thought and neither does a test to recall it. You speak almost like a conspiracy theorist. If fact checking is indoctrination, do we stop teaching facts altogether! Do we want to know what kids think two plus two is as an individual? Or do we need to teach them facts, by using techniques to keep them listening and hence learning! If you want to speak pragmatically rather than emotionally, you need to stop just complaining about ritual but instead illustrate how you believe the same functions can be performed without recourse to it. You're making emotive complaints but you're not offering alternatives or acknowledging the extensive problems inherent in those.

[keypeg]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

Answering a question by giving the expected answer in order to partake of a ritual is NOT participation.  And no, you have not gotten anything that I have tried to say for almost the entirety of this thread.

It's unequivocal (yet objectively falsifiable) assertions like this that I am objecting to. Yes it is participation! You can insist it isn't as much as you like, but the dictionary definition of participation says otherwise. You are presenting you OWN emotive experiences as if they objectively define any student in any given situation- and serve to rule out any possibility that even a single student could possibly listen better or feel involved by questions with a factual answer. To dismiss something like this outright is just totally irrational- to an extent that clearly reveals an emotionally-fuelled dislike. Nobody saying anything other than a teacher (who gives a lecture to a silent classroom) is an absence of participation. Asking a question and somebody answering is participation. The objective applicability of the word participation is not defined by whether a question calls for personal opinion or factual recall. Not only is answering a question definably an act of participation, but it encourages more active listening- from those students who enjoy the chance to give a correct answer to a question that has a definitive answer. It generates the FEELING of participation- as students look forward to the chance to give an answer and hence listen more closely overall. If you have never felt this way, that does not rule out the evident fact that many (and perhaps even most) children do. Nobody says a contestant on a game show is not participating simply because they give the answers they are "supposed to" rather than a subjective opinion that falls outside of the remit of the question asked. Your evident personal distaste for what you call ritual does not change any of these objective issues.

I am sorry if you take this personally, but I have said nothing about your own teaching. Not a word. I am simply defending an element that are being so comprehensively dismissive of, that you cannot even credit it so far as to acknowledge that the irrefutably accurate definition of the word "participation" correctly applies to it. I simply cannot understand such a resolutely dismissive attitude- or why you are repeating the same assertions rather than following up on my points. How do you think a teacher who works this way might feel- upon reading your severely derogatory assessments of a standard teaching practise (the purpose of which you have not even offered a specific alternative to!)? I think they'd see the word sneer as putting it mildly.

[keypeg]

I tried to describe a positive use of the types of things described at the start of this thread, namely as tools.  Further on I gave examples of teaching which is not necessarily tied to words, and which has been quite successful - again in a positive view.  I tried to expand into different ways of seeing things, being creative and explorative.  Not only did that get reduced to conflict.  In addition, my own character for some reason got painted - a sneering judgmental monster - from whence, who knows?  The same gentleman who invited us to be innovative and open minded about physical playing does not seem to be able to extend that same open mindedness about alternate approaches or angles of seeing things.  It has to be black and white, either or. Either that or a huge miscommunication, and no acceptance that such things are even possible.

The things that I contributed were not a matter of "taste".  I spent several decades finding things that worked, and obstacles making things not work.  It's not some philosophy pulled out of a hat out of idealism.  I hoped for exploration.  Ideas and experiences by various people are like putty that can be moulded and reshaped into newer and better ideas.  They should not be things subject to a checklist of right and wrong.  I prefer a world of "I never thought about that before." or "I never saw things from this angle before. Might we be able to gain some new ground here?"  I thought this forum was the place for such things.

I am more than a little bit disappointed and wonder if I'm wasting my time here.

[keypeg]

.

[keypeg]

When someone projects ideas you never expressed as yours.  It's not an innocent mistake - it's straw man stuff.

Next free moment I have, I'll look up "straw man"  

addendum:
Done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[nyiregyhazi]

What I am against is empty ritual, empty form.  When form is used for a purpose as a tool, toward a purpose, there is nothing wrong with it.  So if you refer to a teacher who works in a way that I am against, you are saying "How do you think a teacher who works in an empty mindless way might feel...."  I seem to recall that you yourself were against such a thing very early on in this thread.  I can't even figure out what you are arguing against, since you said pretty well what I have been saying, only using different words.

Even if it is ritual- if kids are thrusting their hands up enthusiastically they ARE both participating and learning. It's what results from it that matters. You are so caught up in evident disdain for such a scenario, that you are not thinking objectively about what it can achieve. You're just emoting about how objectionable you find it- rather than taking up my invitation to you to state what alternative might directly replace its specific role. It's still participation and it still inspires greater involvement than a one-ended lecture. How many times can I repeat that before you actually address this issue? I am writing to respond simply because I am deeply surprised at how closed-minded you have been about even a possibility of benefits. What I am arguing against is a a number of objectively unsupportable assertions, stated as if incontrovertible absolutes- none of which I should dream of stating in "different words".

[keypeg]

N - You have not understood a thing that I have said.  You are responding to a fiction; to something that I am not saying.  This isn't working.

In addition, you are attributing attitudes and thoughts that I don't hold, and responding to these things.  That is disturbing.  Those are not my thoughts and not my attitudes.

But to make it worse you are now attacking my character when you don't know me: close-minded, disdain, and what know.  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT I HAVE WRITTEN.  Please just leave it!

[keypeg]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

N - You have not understood a thing that I have said.  You are responding to a fiction; to something that I am not saying.  This isn't working.

In addition, you are attributing attitudes and thoughts that I don't hold, and responding to these things.  That is disturbing.  Those are not my thoughts and not my attitudes.

But to make it worse you are now attacking my character when you don't know me: close-minded, disdain, and what know.  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT I HAVE WRITTEN.  Please just leave it!

I'm sorry, but but I have responded to precisely what you wrote. When speaking about broad issues, it's very important to be clear about precisely what you are criticising and what you are not. Nobody can read your mind. When speaking dismissively, it's your job not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you do so, you can't blame another party for pointing out the consequences of doing so.

I had tried my best to move it onward- by repeatedly attempting to get you to address the issues that even the most ritualistically scripted questions really DO achieve. Instead you just kept repeating completely dismissive assertions portrayed as if absolute truths- without suggesting alternatives or even acknowledging the most irrefutable facts. Why do you think I consider your objections to be primarily emotive? It's for the simple reason that you did not follow up on any of the logical paths that I repeatedly started- illustrating what your dismissive attitude has overlooked. You just kept saying how awful it is instead. When you dismiss something casually (and fail to acknowledge that it can achieve a single thing) you cannot then complain about having been misunderstood. If you mean something else (other than the total dismissal you made) you need to convey it in your language. It's your job to make clear distinctions between what you are and not dismissing.