blondchen
-
Posts
357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by blondchen
-
-
Doodling Dragons isn't at all necessary, but it sure is a cute book, and fun way of cementing the phonograms. DD4 is resistant to doing the flashcards, but she loves the book, as does DD6 who is already reading well and will start Essentials for spelling as soon as I can afford the TM!
-
I didn't realize that Christians who allow for evolution would also consider themselves creationists...so I guess I am really not sure how to distinguish between the two for the purposes of soliciting resources targeted for one belief set vs the other.
There are many views contained within creationism. As far as I know, only the young-earth creationist view (six 24-hour days) automatically excludes evolution. That's not to say that old-earth creationists do or must believe in evolution, it's just that believing in an old earth is what opens up the mere possibility. Keller does a great job of explaining this distinction, by the way.
And, yes, it is definitely a secondary issue, with God's redemption thru Jesus being of primary importance.
:)
So just to clarify, for those who care what origins processes are being supported...is the Keller article supporting evolution then? (I will read it myself within the next couple of days, but figured clarification for other readers on the thread would be good)
Tim Keller is a conservative, evangelical, old-earth creationist, and in this article, he shows how certain scientific data and aspects of evolution can be accepted without doing violence to the intent of the scriptures. I was floored when I first read it (several months ago) - Keller is a master at getting to the heart of an issue and clearly explaining his conclusions.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
Many secular and many evangelical voices agree on one ‘truism’—that if you are an orthodoxChristian with a high view of the authority of the Bible, you cannot believe in evolution in any form at all.New Atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and creationist writers such as Ken Ham seem to have arrivedat consensus on this, and so more and more in the general population are treating it as given. If you believein God, you can’t believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, you can’t believe in God.This creates a problem for both doubters and believers. Many believers in western culture see themedical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a verypositive view of science. How then, can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution withtheir traditional theological beliefs? Seekers and inquirers about Christianity can be even more perplexed.They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but, they say, “I don’t see how I can believe theBible if that means I have to reject science.â€However, there are many who question the premise that science and faith are irreconcilable. Manybelieve that a high view of the Bible does not demand belief in just one account of origins. They argue thatwe do not have to choose between an anti-science religion or an anti-religious science. They think thatthere are a variety of ways in which God could have brought about the creation of life forms and human lifeusing evolutionary processes, and that the picture of incompatibility between orthodox faith andevolutionary biology is greatly overdrawn. -
I edited the title to get more input - I am locked into getting a Nook, but I realized that my only issue is size - the 7-inch or 9-inch - and those with Kindles or other tablets could comment on that, in terms of portability vs. screen size.
--------------------
I have a $120 credit at Barnes and Noble, so getting a Kindle or other tablet is not an option at this point. Gotta go with Nook. I've been waiting until I could afford to pay the extra for the HD or HD+, and they just announced a major sale this week. Woo!
So, now I need to decide between the HD and the HD+. It seems to me that the only difference is the size (and the price, of course - $30 more for the HD+). I do want to use it as an e-reader and for light web browsing, but I also want it to be useful for homeschooling, such as reading pdfs, and for viewing science and art images/videos online, etc. It would be great for the kids watching videos on car trips, too. And fwiw, I'm not going to let my young kids use it unsupervised, if at all.
Anyway, I'd love the large screen of the HD+, but would that be too cumbersome for just reading, and for carrying around? I guess that's my main issue. Even the smaller one is probably not something I'd want to have in my purse all the time, but I want it to be comfortably portable when I do take it out of the house.
Thoughts?
-
Ummm...I think I am being clear when I write something, but then later on I start to second guess myself. I definitely was not trying to create any division. Since my own "bent" is Christian creationist , I am working with 2nd hand info in trying to capture the Christian evolutionist perspective. Basically, since my goals with the thread were less clear to start with than I had realized, I was trying (but not necessarily successfully) to give a brief snippet of what I understood the 2 perspectives to be so that saying I was looking for "creation" resources would be clearer. If I completely blew it and managed to offend fellow believers, I do apologize.
I was not offended, but I appreciate these helpful clarifications. :)
I think that the heart of creationism is believing that GOD created the universe out of nothing by His own divine agency (in the case of Christians and Jews it would be Yahweh, the God of the Bible). THAT is the absolute, irrefutable claim of the Bible, regardless of how you interpret Genesis 1-2 or anything else. With agreement on that, the specific manner in which He created (how and when) is the only thing in question. Considering that the Bible is not concerned with natural science as we know it, and has far more significant issues to address (such as God's plan of redemption and the person and work of Christ!), if we would instead focus on the primary issues that the Bible does address in detail, we could treat the how/when of creation as a secondary issue. Then we could graciously discuss these issues with the goal of bringing glory our God and using our ever-expanding understanding of the natural world to see God more and more for who He is and marvel at His greatness.
Since my own "bent" is Christian creationist , I am working with 2nd hand info in trying to capture the Christian evolutionist perspective.
There's a false dichotomy here. I'm sure I'm as much a creationist as you are, but I also accept the scientific evidence for evolution and believe that it is entirely compatible with the truth of scripture (and believe me, I have a high view of scripture). I'm not sure that I'd be called an "evolutionist" per se (since that is a loaded term), but let's be careful to not speak of this as creationism versus evolution. My belief in evolutionary processes does not make me one iota less a creationist.
Please read the Tim Keller paper I linked to in my previous post, if you haven't already done so. His perspective on these issues will be very eye-opening regarding Christians who accept evolution.
-
I posted this on another thread (one of the recent controversial ones!) and I'll post it again here for those who may not have seen it. An excellent article/paper by Pastor Tim Keller on reconciling many of the issues involved with creation and evolution. Dr. Keller is brilliant, and his writing drips with grace and humility and pastoral concern. I was blown away with his approach, and I consider this to be a must-read for any Christian who is interested in these issues.
-
To the OP, I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but it's a GREAT article/paper that addresses many of the pastoral concerns involved in the creation vs evolution debate, by Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in Manhattan. Dr. Keller accepts both creationism and evolutionary theory, and with humility and grace, he reconciles many of the issues brilliantly, in my opinion.
-
DD6 is writing and reading well and will finish OPGTR this summer, and she is more than ready to start spelling right now. I'm on a pretty tight budget but am in love with the LOE curriculum. I'm going to skimp in other areas and spring for at least the TM, and I've already made some of my own phonogram cards (using Uncovering the Logic of English) that I've been using - as needed - as we go through OPGTR.
How important is the workbook? I'm okay with using a regular handwriting notebook for spelling and dictation, but I don't want to jump through too many hoops and adapt too much. What about the other extras, like the spelling journal and spelling games book and cards, etc? The LOE site says they're optional but scheduled in the curriculum.
I like to keep things simple and I don't want to spend money on stuff I don't need, but I also want this curriculum to be easy to implement and am willing to consider buying some of the extra stuff if it really is THAT valuable.
I'd love some input from those of you who've used this.
Thanks!
-
Haven't used the curriculum yet, but I read the parent's guide to Telling God's Story (which is awesome) and I am very excited to begin Year 1 with DD this summer!
-
I wouldn't send a printed announcement. I would send a personal card to those that helped support him, along with a picture in his graduation gown or holding up a diploma.
The only thing I would print is if you held an appreciation reception for those that are close. You could serve dinner or finger food showing your gratitude for their support and specifically request no gifts.
The photo idea is something we're considering. We will have a reception, and I wish it could be an appreciation thing, but only one of our supporters lives within easy driving distance. So our guests will mainly be a few close friends from our current church and DH's parents.
A graduation announcement is just that: an announcement of a graduation. :-)
Well, that's what I think, but you just never know these days. Expectations are all over the place anymore, it seems.
-
My only concern would be sending a blanket expression of gratitude to people who weren't all that helpful. And it can get expensive if you are printing ?either professionally or at home) two different announcements.
If it were me, and I know it isn't, I'd just send the graduation announcement. You've already expressed your gratitude both formally and informally to the supporters.
And since some of these people sent money to support your dh's endeavor, I don't think I'd go with professionally engraved announcements. (Insert winking smiley)
I totally understand your concerns - thanks for the input. There will be no blanket expression of gratitude. The announcement itself will be generic, and we'll include a handwritten, personal note - in a separate envelope - with the ones to our supporters. Some of them sent monthly support for 3+ years, so it's a big deal and we want to send one final thank-you.
And it DID occur to me that sending a ridiculously-expensive engraved announcement might look...umm...unbecoming for a family in our situation - LOL! DH handpicked a few people (all family, most of whom have not sent financial support) who would really appreciate getting one like that, and the rest will be either DIY or from a site like Vistaprint. I about fell over when I saw the price for the "official" announcements from the school's company. :eek: We can swing buying a few of them now that DH is doing a paid internship, thankfully. And my sweet DH is a sentimental, old soul so sending some engraved ones to family for this milestone is really important to him.
-
Be sure to send separate thank you notes if he has not sent one as he received monetary gifts during this process.
Oh yes, we have sent handwritten thank-you notes all along. And actually, the reason I started thinking about announcements was that I wanted to make sure we sent something official to our supporters at the end of the journey to express our gratitude. Then we started thinking about others we could send them to.
-
After a long, arduous process, my DH is finally getting his Master of Divinity degree in preparation for entering full-time pastoral ministry. This has been a really long time coming, and we are very excited to share it with people. There are a lot of people who have invested in this process with financial support, and even though they either do know or will know shortly that he's finished (since we communicate with them pretty regularly), we definitely want to send an official announcement/thank-you to those people. DH has other family and friends who would probably be delighted to receive some kind of announcement as well. BTW, most of our friends and family live out of state, so coming to a party or attending graduation would be out of the question for almost everyone.
My main issue is that I guess a lot of people view a grad announcement as a request for a gift or money, and that is the LAST thing we would want to communicate. We just want to officially share this most-significant milestone with those who would rejoice with us. FWIW, this is a much, much bigger deal to DH than any other milestone in his life besides our wedding and the births of our kids. :-)
We will definitely send some kind of announcement to the people who have supported us financially, with a handwritten thank-you, but I'm not sure how to handle this with other people. I REALLY REALLY don't want to come across as tacky, or to give the impression that we're asking for money. Ugh.
Thoughts?
-
Just because the script is there, doesn't mean you have to use it. I use RightStart and OPGTR.....I don't know if you'd consider those highly scripted or not. I just look over the lesson and do it. I don't just sit there and read off the page.
In the example you gave, I would have glanced through the questions and said "what can you tell me about the donkey?" The rest of my questions would depend on what the child's answer was.
This, exactly. I like having the script because at least everything is there if I want to use it, and I don't worry about missing the important stuff, plus sometimes the script wording explains something better than I could on my own. So, I use it when it helps and toss it when it doesn't, and I pretty much never read a script word-for-word. I can skim very fast and can easily edit on the fly, even if I didn't look at it ahead of time, so scripted material works really well for me. I believe part of this issue is personality. I'm a Myers-Briggs ISTJ, so for better or worse, I crave rules and structure, and I like knowing how something is "supposed to" be done (with everything in life - recipes, sewing, teaching material, etc), even if I end up adapting it for my own situation in a way that works better for me.
[bTW, "supposed to" is in quotes because that phrase/mindset is one of the quirky hallmarks of an ISTJ that I find amusing - it doesn't mean that I think there's only one correct way of teaching something.] :)
-
The summary of the Bible contained in the last few chapters of Telling God's Story: A Parent's Guide to Teaching the Bible is wonderful. It provides a concise beginning-to-end overview of the Biblical story, highlighting the major themes, persons and events, and will give you a good idea about what to focus on in order to really understand the message of the Bible (whether or not you believe it's true). The book itself is inexpensive, and a quick and easy read. I highly recommend it.
-
We're also big fans of the Jesus Storybook Bible - I started reading it to my oldest when she turned two (the target ages are 4-8) and we've read it just about every day for four years.
As background for yourself, I highly recommend this book from SWB's publishing company, written by Biblical scholar Peter Enns:
Telling God's Story: A Parent's Guide to Teaching the Bible
The summary of the Bible contained in the last few chapters is worth ten times the price of the book. It's one of the best things I've read in a long time. Like some other parents, I don't necessarily agree with everything Enns says about how to teach children about God and the Bible (he says some confusing things about discussing with children the topic of sin and their need for a Savior) but after reading the book I heartily agree with his recommendation to start by introducing young children to Jesus as he's found in the gospels. None of the Bible makes sense unless Jesus is the center, and there is no substitute for getting to know what he said and what he did in context - both for children and adults. Even though the Jesus Storybook Bible starts at the beginning of the Old Testament (which is not what Enns recommends, and I totally see his point) that particular story Bible is totally focused on Jesus, which is why I'm a fan and will continue to use it, even as we begin the Telling God's Story Bible curriculum next school year.
-
Regarding your DH's issue with meat, I'd have a heart-to-heart with him at a time when you're not eating or otherwise discussing diet. Ask him how he feels about the "bargain" you made before you were married. Sounds like neither of you was prepared for how hard it would be at times, and you need to come together to re-focus on loving each other - both in heart and in practice - in spite of your differences on this. Easier said than done, I know. :)
My kids have multiple food allergies and we've been through lots of testing and elimination, etc., and my advice is to have your ds tested before doing an elimination diet, for two reasons:
1. It will help to focus your efforts so you're not barking up the wrong tree, and give you the best protocol to follow. It may be something you didn't suspect at all - that happened to me with DD4, and I'm so glad we had the tests to guide us. Also, for example, if milk is the problem then it's important to know whether it's the protein (allergy) or the sugar (lactose intolerance) that's causing the symptoms. Same goes for wheat allergy vs. gluten intolerance (celiac). You manage those issues in different ways in the diet. So, I'd take ds to an allergist and have him skin tested for at least the 8 common allergens and blood tested for celiac disease. Not sure how lactose intolerance is diagnosed since we've not dealt with that. Tests don't always reflect real-life symptoms, but they can be very helpful tools, and testing is a much simpler first step than going through strict elimination and reintroduction on your own. And by all means, consult a nutritionist if you do have to eliminate something.
2. If the test is positive for one or more allergens/intolerances, elimination would be doctor's orders, so dh would, I assume, embrace the inconvenience and not give you grief about it.
-
There are only a handful of true "sight" words in English. Most words taught as "sight words" are actually phonetic but just use more advanced phonics rules typically saved for later. I do teach some of these words by "sight" early on but make sure to sound them out phonetically for my child. For example, if I'm teaching "they" as a sight word, I will tell my child that the "ey" makes the long "a" sound in this particular word.
This, exactly.
-
Here's my first grade plan. I'm mostly following TWTM:
Language Arts: FLL1/2, WWE1, LOE or something similar for spelling (we will have finished OPGTR)
Math: RightStart B
History: TOG Year 1 (borrowing curriculum and books from a friend, otherwise we'd do SOTW)
Science: Biology - probably TWTM's version, though if we have the money I'll get Elemental or NOEO
Bible: Telling God's Story, Year 1
Art & Music Appreciation: Harmony Fine Arts, plus drawing lessons with DH
Lots and lots of reading and read-alouds, too!
-
Blondchen, just for your trivia I did take several semesters of linguistics in college and I also took a couple courses in Russian linguistics. :)
Well, that's a fun piece of trivia! :) I also took several semesters of linguistics in college, and at various times during high school, college and grad school I studied French, Russian, Italian and German (though I've forgotten most of it - it's been a long time!). I LOVE studying languages and starting this summer I am planning to learn New Testament Greek, which is something that's long overdue.
As far as the most thorough program, it's still SWR. Goes the farthest, has the most enrichments, and is the easiest to pace to a variety of levels of student. I used it with the phonogram cards from WRTR, because the cards are exceptionally well-made (unlike the SWR cards you laminate yourself, bleh). My WRTR phonogram cards are the larger, classroom size, but if I were buying over I'd probably buy the smaller. Get the regular and advanced.
I like the phonogram games book from LOE and have a couple card decks to go with it. Her book is intriguing, and it's the only thing I've seen that makes a serious effort to give options for multiple modalities. If you have a SN student or kinesthetic learner, this could be huge. It's a fine program, but SWR still brings more to the table.
I think I'm suggesting you mix and match. :)
Btw, if it really plagues you, there are reference books like ABCs and All Their Tricks. Sometimes explaining too much can confuse the student. It really just depends on the dc.
I really appreciate this - great info and advice. I'm still undecided, but the scripted, open-and-go nature of LOE is hard to resist at this point. Because I'm a newbie (and a Myers-Briggs SJ who craves structure!), I prefer the convenience of scripted programs, and when I know what I'm doing I am comfortable adapting as needed, so they don't box me in, but I like having it all there anyway. I agree that too much explanation can be confusing to the student, and I'm trying to be sensitive to that balance with DD. Her reading is going very well, and I'm interested to see how adding spelling rules to the mix affects that.
I imagine that the LOE program will continue to expand, so I'm assuming that the currently-limited number of resources for Essentials and beyond won't be an issue down the road (my oldest is in K). I was able to look through the TM at the Greenville convention, and I was very impressed. And all the online videos! Denise Eide has something going on here. Btw, I'm only planning to use the spelling and dictation portion, no matter which curriculum I choose. I'm even wondering if I need the LOE student workbook to just do spelling stuff. Haven't figured that one out yet.
One thing that's a bummer is that I really like to see stuff in person before making a decision (especially when the cost is high), and I haven't seen SWR. I was very disappointed that no one at the Greenville convention had it available, because I was leaning in that direction at the time and was hoping that seeing it would push me over the edge...and then I saw LOE! I about fainted when I saw WRTR, though. And when I told DH that using WRTR would be a lot cheaper but it's suggested to read through it several times to get your head around it he said, "Get the other one - just do it." Okay then - LOL!! We'll see...
-
"mother" would be pronounced moth-er, with a short /o/ sound - just when dictating. That's how you "think to spell" that word. You remember a different pronunciation for it. But as I said, I prefer to just learn the letter and reserve "think to spell" for words that don't follow obvious phonetic patterns, or words that are tricky to remember to spell in general.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. Thanks for the explanation!
If you get too deep into the phonics, you're going to drive yourself nuts. I'm finding this with my 3 year old (almost 4) who is really into sounding out words right now. Yesterday, he pointed out a couple words he wanted to sound out... I forget what one of them was, but the 'a' wasn't saying any of its normal sounds, and he was trying to make it fit into phonics. It doesn't! Thankfully, he does have a good memory, but with his good phonics knowledge, he wants everything to fit phonics. He is sounding out "subway", "men", "stop" (painted on the ground), etc. Those all follow easy phonics rules, so he enjoys breaking them apart and putting them back together. Then you throw "leopard" at him, and he's like, "Huh?!?" :lol:
I hear ya! I almost majored in linguistics, so this stuff really fascinates me and I frankly love getting into all kinds of nitty gritty, in terms of my own personal interest. I used to have hours-long talks with my brilliant grandmother about the intricacies of our language and I still miss that now that she's gone. English is phonetically crazy, but if something does follow a logical pattern, I want to know (or figure out) the best way of understanding and applying it - especially if I have to teach it! For something that doesn't make sense and to which rules don't apply, I'll accept it for what it is and move on. No biggie.
I'm curious to see how my kids end up processing this stuff. I have a knack for language and a very strong visual memory, so once I hear or see a word, I almost always pronounce and spell it correctly thereafter. But if I didn't have that advantage, my super-logical personality would make me very frustrated with having to learn English phonics without being able to use a logical set of rules where they do apply. Everyone is different, and while I don't want to bog my kids down with rules they don't need, I also don't want my super-logical-minded children to be frustrated in situations in which something that could make sense to them doesn't, simply because I don't have the tools to deal with it. That's where I see the strength of thorough programs like LOE, and why I'm considering forking over the money for it. It's not for everyone, but I want all those tools, whether I end up using all of them or not.
-
BTW, it looks like Denise Eide of LOE is at least considering this issue for an update/correction. Here's a LOE forum thread on this exact topic, though the most recent post is six months old:
http://www.logicofen...c.php?f=2&t=156
Just for fun, I may post over there to see if she's gotten anywhere on it, or has any additional thoughts at this point.
-
Don't let the # of sounds for a letter decide your spelling program. Look at the features and overall pacing of the program, what it brings to the table. While those programs are conceptually similar, the pacing and adaptability really varies.
Thanks for the input. This isn't a deciding factor in my choice at all - it's just an issue I came across that had me stumped (and I'm a linguistics buff of sorts, so I can't let this stuff go easily - LOL!). I can certainly adapt where needed - I'm just wondering why those well-respected curricula don't include such an obvious thing as the o phonogram making a short u sound. It seems awfully common to be treated as an exception, but does it seem more common than it is?
We are using LOE, but I added a fourth sound to the O card because it just makes sense to me. :) So, if it makes sense to me, it makes it easier for me, as the teacher, to teach it to my kids.
That's what I'd do - just add it to the card. I guess I'd figure it out how to work around any spelling issues when I get to those words in the curriculum - or maybe it's a non-issue with spelling if you just teach the fourth sound from the beginning. Which begs the question: why don't they just include it?
I *gasp* disagree with Mrs. Spalding (and Sanseri) about using "think to spell" for such words when there are a large amount of words that make a particular sound. I prefer to reserve "think to spell" for words like "Wednesday", where is just makes no phonetic sense.
I totally get the Wednesday thing. I didn't have a chance to post again the other day, but I was going to ask you how "think to spell" would apply to a word like mother, using the short o sound. I still don't understand that - at all.
I'm sorry if this came across as a big deal in my OP - it's really not. I'm more curious than anything, actually. Anyone else with thoughts on this?
-
Some of the spelling programs don't use the pronounced sound for every word. So for "mother", they would use the first sound of 'o' (the short 'o') and "think to spell".
What exactly is "think to spell"? I have an idea but don't want to assume. :-) And an example of how that's used in the context of dictating a spelling word would be awesome!
-
I'm still deciding on a spelling curriculum, but one of the things that I've just come across in my research is the issue of how many sounds the O phonogram has. I understand that AAS includes a fourth sound of O, which is a short u. Why don't all programs include that? How do you otherwise account for the pronunciation of mother, done, wonder, etc. without that fourth sound? It seems too common to be an exception. And I don't buy that it's a schwa - the schwa is for unaccented syllables. Even brand-new Logic of English doesn't use the fourth sound, and I can't find any reasonable explanation. ???
Resources for those who teach Creation
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
There we go. I'm not sure that "literal creationist" is the best term for what you're referring to (as I also believe that God "literally" created the universe), but indeed, this final clarification is the most helpful. I totally understand where you're coming from with regard to your original intentions and the direction of the thread. In any case, I hope that much of what has been posted turns out to be valuable for you, and that it at least has given you a better understanding of where some of your fellow Christians land on the spectrum.
Blessings. :)
ETA: I don't mean to cause confusion about the "literal" issue in my second sentence above - just pointing out how important it is to be careful when labeling a point of view as an "-ism" or a person as an "-ist". I can see how difficult that is in regard to these issues, since people's views are all over the map, and definitions are often not standardized. I have strong beliefs about many things, but I am not fond of labels for myself (other than being a Christian, as in a follower of Christ) because it might give others a false impression of my own views, which often do not reflect what the "-ism" seems to indicate. And though I accept certain things about evolution, I'm not sure I'm comfortable being defined as an "evolutionary creationist". Your explanation in bold is a really good way of making the distinction you were getting at, and I'm so glad you thought to phrase it that way. I thought of suggesting "non-evolutionary creationist" as an alternative to "literal creationist", but I don't like it when people are labeled according to what they're against. Hope that makes sense.