Here is a copy of a Valedictorian Speech currently making the rounds on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?filter=lf#!/note.php?note_id=10150228823270722&id=239764686682&ref=mf
I think it explains the problems of socialization among children and teens better than I ever could. Why is it people somehow think peer pressure is okay and a normal method of socialization but meeting and talking to people of various ages and interests not socialization? How do you debate the issue with parents who obviously support the former and condemn the latter?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Spelling
Actually said: "That 'Google's' quite something...if you know how to spell"...after putting in the word "sextent" instead of "sextant."
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Books, books and more books
Here is a brief list of books my 11 year old daughter has read in the past seven months:
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twilight, Eclipse and New Moon by Stephanie Meyers
Dante's Inferno (half of the book, but she's not finished, yet)
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer (Prologue and The Wife of Bath's Tale)
Sir Gawain and The Green Knight Anonymous author
The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare
Pamela by Samuel Richardson
This is an incomplete list; some of the books were required reading from the Great Reading lists in "The Well-Trained Mind" by Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Bauer and some are books Emily just happened to pick up to read. The point I want to make is my youngest daughter is capable of reading good quality fiction; although, she quite enjoyed Stephanie Meyers' books, she did not consider them good quality. I thought they were like candy for the brain but Emily is the one who read them repeatedly.
There is something terribly sad when one reads reviews of the new Ipad from Apple or of the Kobo reader; they are determined satisfactory based on a reader's ability to read a story quickly. For the time being, a good old fashioned book is still read faster than technology and still weighs less. But, to be honest, that is hardly indicative of a person's ability to grasp information, think on it and interpret it. Speed might be convenient but is hardly relevant when encountering a good tale; some stories need time to be told and swallowed and digested comfortably. Maybe there are pieces of information that can be skimmed and quickly inculcated but I doubt they are literary masterpieces. I don't know if literary masterpieces can be written on a computer and immediately published (and I am not being ironic). But judging the speed and quality of a lot of current books, I find a lot of writing superficial.
The one thing I have begun to notice, as both reader and writer, is the ignorance of an awful lot of writers. I wonder if the superficiality of the Ipad and the Kobo reader will increase this trend? My children read books; all of them have read or are reading the Bible and the Koran--not because I am big-time religious but because so much of world literature is dependent on a familiarity with such works. They are important pieces of writing that need to be thought about--similarly, important books by Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dante, the Morte D'Arthur and other books are important works to be thought about. I know of an English college professor (a graduate of an university) who had never heard of Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina." Not everyone has to have read the book, but it is a demonstration of ignorance not to have heard of it. I keep wondering if the Ipad will lead to a mere familiarity with a Wikipedia definition rather than an actual encounter with the novel. I don't know but I do find the latest trends in some literature worrisome.
The Guardian makes a mockery of some of these concerns with their latest book lists, although some of them are quite relevant and others amusing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/bestbooks
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twilight, Eclipse and New Moon by Stephanie Meyers
Dante's Inferno (half of the book, but she's not finished, yet)
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer (Prologue and The Wife of Bath's Tale)
Sir Gawain and The Green Knight Anonymous author
The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare
Pamela by Samuel Richardson
This is an incomplete list; some of the books were required reading from the Great Reading lists in "The Well-Trained Mind" by Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Bauer and some are books Emily just happened to pick up to read. The point I want to make is my youngest daughter is capable of reading good quality fiction; although, she quite enjoyed Stephanie Meyers' books, she did not consider them good quality. I thought they were like candy for the brain but Emily is the one who read them repeatedly.
There is something terribly sad when one reads reviews of the new Ipad from Apple or of the Kobo reader; they are determined satisfactory based on a reader's ability to read a story quickly. For the time being, a good old fashioned book is still read faster than technology and still weighs less. But, to be honest, that is hardly indicative of a person's ability to grasp information, think on it and interpret it. Speed might be convenient but is hardly relevant when encountering a good tale; some stories need time to be told and swallowed and digested comfortably. Maybe there are pieces of information that can be skimmed and quickly inculcated but I doubt they are literary masterpieces. I don't know if literary masterpieces can be written on a computer and immediately published (and I am not being ironic). But judging the speed and quality of a lot of current books, I find a lot of writing superficial.
The one thing I have begun to notice, as both reader and writer, is the ignorance of an awful lot of writers. I wonder if the superficiality of the Ipad and the Kobo reader will increase this trend? My children read books; all of them have read or are reading the Bible and the Koran--not because I am big-time religious but because so much of world literature is dependent on a familiarity with such works. They are important pieces of writing that need to be thought about--similarly, important books by Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dante, the Morte D'Arthur and other books are important works to be thought about. I know of an English college professor (a graduate of an university) who had never heard of Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina." Not everyone has to have read the book, but it is a demonstration of ignorance not to have heard of it. I keep wondering if the Ipad will lead to a mere familiarity with a Wikipedia definition rather than an actual encounter with the novel. I don't know but I do find the latest trends in some literature worrisome.
The Guardian makes a mockery of some of these concerns with their latest book lists, although some of them are quite relevant and others amusing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/bestbooks
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Value of History
In today's Guardian (July 10, 2010), Niall Ferguson the well-known Conservative historian makes a case for his revitalization of history curricula in England. He wants greater use of television, role playing games and a cohesive narrative that explains Western cultural domination. The article can be read here:
//www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/09/television-war-games-niall-ferguson
(Sorry, I can never get my links to work.) Anyhow, Ferguson wants more visits to battle fields and less time at historical houses and museums. In one sense, he wants history to be more reactive and real to children; in another, he is making it a game with a capitalist bias and a positive slant towards American Culture, English Culture and all round imperial loyalties.
I have read Ferguson's books "Empire" and "Colussus" and for American readers, "Colussus" is Ferguson's attempt to narrate American history; his thoughts are clear, concise, his research exacting, the fact he omits to consider the value of the American Slave trade on a market economy important and demonstrative of his bias. (This was noted first by an Herman Melville biographer--important because Melville was a noted abolitionist).
Ferguson is a conservative which makes his decision to make the art of learning about history a game somewhat questionable--unless, of course, he is considered an author or rights holder of the game and entitled to royalties. History isn't a game and trying to encourage children to appreciate their past via a game actually diminishes historical value. In light of my earlier posting about the issues in the Texan school board, I would like to suggest this type of act is quite dangerous. For example, Thomas Jefferson is an extremely important character in American history. He wrote or drafted the American Declaration of Independence and believed strongly in the division between Church and State; he was also influenced by the changing role of science in the quest for the nature of truth; he was a direct descendant of Enlightenment thinkers; he was most likely a deist and not a practicing Christian; all of these thoughts are important to the nature of history and not easily explained in a game. In English History, Ferguson suggests children can be made aware of Winston Churchill's role in the Second World War and why he was a more important person after the start of the War than before through the interactions of character based play. Ferguson lives in a country where Churchill's political endeavours are still questioned and his impact still felt; to simplify his role to a game is an insult. Obviously, I am more aware of Jefferson than Churchill but I do think the argument still stands.
I don't know how to teach history best; my children learn it in conjunction with geography but we are Canadian and our whole history, native or otherwise, has been determined by a response to our geography and climate. In a sense, it is much easier to react to weather than to cultural enterprise. American history has evolved and is in constant tension with its religious past; the first groups of settlers in the Americas were Enlightenment thinkers and they argued for freedom of religion; the second group were Puritans escaping religious persecution and they wanted a Christian nation. Obviously, I am being simplistic but my points do highlight the need to approach history cautiously and with respect; a game perspective is not going to do it--even a Sims approach won't work.
There is a great Canadian writer, Eric Walters, who has written short novellas about incidences in Canadian history; the target audience is grade 5 but it is a great idea. Small events are discussed and real characters are mentioned but overall the idea is to explore more, that there is a story or history beyond the narrative. Perhaps, that is the greatest failing with Ferguson's idea; his project for the English history student is to summarize history as if it can be explained simply by market forces and military dominance. It doesn't work that way--there are clashes between different ways of thinking, needs that are required and motivations to be explored--all of which must be considered for a sense of history to develop. I don't know the best way for children to learn it though I would make the argument an historian making a game of it in England is demonstrating his desperation.
Sometimes I wonder if students are afraid of a challenge. Of course, the litany of a long list of dates to be memorized is hardly learning history; but, those dates do give a foundation on which to create connections. It would be great if every history teacher could explore their favourite topics to their heart's delight; but there are fundamentals that must be known and are requisite for each country; it is how one builds an identity. Maybe in Niall Ferguson's world that kind of nation building is detrimental to his world view; I beg to differ. I think a great amount of respect for difference can develop once one is secure in one's own identity; gosh, that almost sounds prescriptive for child rearing.
//www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/09/television-war-games-niall-ferguson
(Sorry, I can never get my links to work.) Anyhow, Ferguson wants more visits to battle fields and less time at historical houses and museums. In one sense, he wants history to be more reactive and real to children; in another, he is making it a game with a capitalist bias and a positive slant towards American Culture, English Culture and all round imperial loyalties.
I have read Ferguson's books "Empire" and "Colussus" and for American readers, "Colussus" is Ferguson's attempt to narrate American history; his thoughts are clear, concise, his research exacting, the fact he omits to consider the value of the American Slave trade on a market economy important and demonstrative of his bias. (This was noted first by an Herman Melville biographer--important because Melville was a noted abolitionist).
Ferguson is a conservative which makes his decision to make the art of learning about history a game somewhat questionable--unless, of course, he is considered an author or rights holder of the game and entitled to royalties. History isn't a game and trying to encourage children to appreciate their past via a game actually diminishes historical value. In light of my earlier posting about the issues in the Texan school board, I would like to suggest this type of act is quite dangerous. For example, Thomas Jefferson is an extremely important character in American history. He wrote or drafted the American Declaration of Independence and believed strongly in the division between Church and State; he was also influenced by the changing role of science in the quest for the nature of truth; he was a direct descendant of Enlightenment thinkers; he was most likely a deist and not a practicing Christian; all of these thoughts are important to the nature of history and not easily explained in a game. In English History, Ferguson suggests children can be made aware of Winston Churchill's role in the Second World War and why he was a more important person after the start of the War than before through the interactions of character based play. Ferguson lives in a country where Churchill's political endeavours are still questioned and his impact still felt; to simplify his role to a game is an insult. Obviously, I am more aware of Jefferson than Churchill but I do think the argument still stands.
I don't know how to teach history best; my children learn it in conjunction with geography but we are Canadian and our whole history, native or otherwise, has been determined by a response to our geography and climate. In a sense, it is much easier to react to weather than to cultural enterprise. American history has evolved and is in constant tension with its religious past; the first groups of settlers in the Americas were Enlightenment thinkers and they argued for freedom of religion; the second group were Puritans escaping religious persecution and they wanted a Christian nation. Obviously, I am being simplistic but my points do highlight the need to approach history cautiously and with respect; a game perspective is not going to do it--even a Sims approach won't work.
There is a great Canadian writer, Eric Walters, who has written short novellas about incidences in Canadian history; the target audience is grade 5 but it is a great idea. Small events are discussed and real characters are mentioned but overall the idea is to explore more, that there is a story or history beyond the narrative. Perhaps, that is the greatest failing with Ferguson's idea; his project for the English history student is to summarize history as if it can be explained simply by market forces and military dominance. It doesn't work that way--there are clashes between different ways of thinking, needs that are required and motivations to be explored--all of which must be considered for a sense of history to develop. I don't know the best way for children to learn it though I would make the argument an historian making a game of it in England is demonstrating his desperation.
Sometimes I wonder if students are afraid of a challenge. Of course, the litany of a long list of dates to be memorized is hardly learning history; but, those dates do give a foundation on which to create connections. It would be great if every history teacher could explore their favourite topics to their heart's delight; but there are fundamentals that must be known and are requisite for each country; it is how one builds an identity. Maybe in Niall Ferguson's world that kind of nation building is detrimental to his world view; I beg to differ. I think a great amount of respect for difference can develop once one is secure in one's own identity; gosh, that almost sounds prescriptive for child rearing.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)