A few short, kinda pointless musings

[Ester Maria]

I promised a thread about this to a few people from K-8 board, but I am about to post it here because I believe on this particular board it would be the most relevant and of most use. The general ideas are that (i) there are different academic traditions across the world, whose methods have developed in accordance with the material tackled and with the disposition to one approach or the other, and while much of that overlaps, some crucial differences remain; (ii) it could be interesting to study whether some of those methods can be stripped off their original context and put to use in other disciplines and traditions and (iii) perhaps much of the Jewish success in the world rests on a particularly good combination - and that is a personal opinion - of typical Judaic study methods and typical Western / secular academic tradition study methods, from which follows (iv) that maybe those are somehow complimentary and maybe more people could profit from musing about these issues and putting them to practical experimentation.

 

BEFORE I CONTINUE, let us check off the disclaimers: (i) the point of the discussion is to focus on the Judaic study methods, not on the Judaic study methods, i.e. it is about the methods themselves, not their origin in a religious context; (ii) the thread is not to be read as an attempt at academic (or worse, religious LOL) proselytism, it is here to amuse you while you are beguiling your time on WTM boards, not to suggest that these methods are somehow academically or morally superior to what other people may do and feel more comfortable with, and (iii) a certain level of simplification - not to say trivialization - of the matters is needed in discussions of this kind, so I ask for the understanding that the methods presented, assessed and compared here are not intended to be comprehensive, uniquely Judaic (as though I was implying they are not present in some form in other learning traditions), etc.

I deliberately minimized the use of "Jewish" words and expressions, substituting them wherever possible, and where not possible, explaining them, so that the discussion can be lead in a common language and a common set of cultural associations, and I deliberately approached the topic through Western lenses (e.g. explaining textual differences via De Saussure's terminology and not Jewish concepts, etc.) for the same reason.

 

:)

 

Firstly, it would be ideal, if you are not familiar with what I am talking about, to have some sort of visual insight into it. The longer version - which also gives you a basic background in Judaism and is excellent for general audience - is Salfati's documentary History of Talmud. The shorter version would be to check some of the advertisements for yeshiva high schools which include visual representations of how kids learn, or just searching for relevant terms on Youtube or someplace else where you are likely to run into videos of how people learn. Things that you are supposed to see and hear are lots of NOISE (reading aloud, learning aloud, discussing aloud in a huge room filled with many other people discussing other things aloud), lots of PHYSICAL MOVEMENT (swaying in the middle of the lesson, hand movements when explaining things), texts which are not "linear" (i.e. they visually look a bit "weird" - they include a middle portion of something and then comments on it around it), PAIR WORK with kids who sit one opposite each other each with a copy of a text and discuss it, a teacher with a group of kids reading from a holy text and automatically translating it to the children's spoken language, unusual musical intonation used in studying and lecturing, lots of books, and so on, but we will focus on these and how to apply them in the context of classical education. I will go point by point and explain what is so different and whether and how it could be applied to something we do.

 

 

1. NON-LINEAR LEARNING OF LINEAR TEXTS (for every text is linear)?! HOW?! or Diachronic vs. synchronic approach in studying texts

 

The classical Western academic tradition - and WTM as a text which fundamentally stems from it - is diachronic in principle. Diachrony comes from dia + kronos, through time. A banal explanation would be that the diachronic study of a text is a study which takes texts in chronological order, but maybe I can explain it even further: diachrony is a particular type of mental organization which "segments" the phenomena by time, viewing them in their historical genesis and viewing the connections between them in their historical genesis (separate the two in your mind!). This has its enormous advantages, amply discussed in WTM and multiple times on these boards, and the main advantage is the clarity of what is based on what, what stems from what and the types of connections and interconnections that this study cultivates.

 

Diachrony is excellent, I practice it, I love it, and it provides a VERY important piece of the puzzle.

Synchrony, however, is a completely different beast, but not in the least less important. Synchrony comes from sin + kronos, it attemps to capture various points on the historical genesis of a phenomenon (following? :D), but taking them in simultaneously, on par one with another.

 

The opposition of diachrony and synchrony was actually drawn by De Saussure in a linguistic context, but this is the best way I can explain the fundamental difference between the study of great books as typically done and the study of Judaic philosophy as typically done. Great books are diachrionic. Judaics are synchronic.

NOTA BENE. Labeling one or the other means focusing on the dominant aspect. There are elements of BOTH approaches in BOTH - since you do draw across-time connections even when you study books chronologically (you go back, compare, contrast, e.g. see what the original Antigone turned into in Annouilh), and since you are VERY aware of the gradation of Judaic texts when you study them (it is not that you "forget" about the levels of texts - you are very aware which comes first, what is derived from what).

 

So why do I bring it up? Because synchrony has actually been traditionally pushed aside for the sake of sparing oneself of a "mirror room effect". Mirror room effect is EXACTLY what you get when you study Jewish texts - you have text mirroring in other texts mirroring in other texts, ALL studied together. On the same page you have one unit of a law and CENTURIES of rabbinical comments on that surrounding it, often each in a different font (so you know quite automatically whose font it is), literally like seeing, visually, an ongoing debate. Without a conclusion. What is written is typically: "Rabbi X said A, rabbi Y replied B, rabbi Z..." The way it is studied is that the discussion is *actively reconstructed*, focusing on the argument through the prism of historical debate, but at the same time forgoing the "historicity" for the POINT (if this makes sense :lol:). The debate gets redabated, so to speak, and put in the context of legal principles.

 

A possible application. You know the proverb that "all Western philosophy is not but notes to Plato"? But nobody has - to my knowledge - ever published an edition of Plato which looks like Talmud (and for various reasons this could not really be possible, but let us focus on the principle now). Yet, it is not impossible to engage in this way of segmenting philosophical or a literary text - anything carrying the idea - and repercussions of that idea through historical debate, focusing on that idea alone. I admit that it is often less than practical because it takes an enormous personal scholarship to be able to select things and redebate them in this fashion, but it is an enormous advantage to actually implement it from time to time to the extent of your ability. It fosters a whole other way of tackling a problem and is in my view just as necessary as the ability to do proper historical segmenting.

 

I think that both literature and philosophy should be studied TWICE for this reason: once in diachrony, once in synchrony. WTM fits here perfectly as the high school, in my view, is the ideal diachrony-dominant stage, and college the ideal synchrony-dominant stage assuming the previous knowledge of historical segmenting acquired in high school. (And THIS is the reason why most of college literature and philosophy ultimately fails: good sychrony, in my experience, only works if paired up with good diachrony, on the long run - AND VICE VERSA.) We are talking about two very similar, but still distinct mental and textual skills. I do not argue against one or the other, but for their COEXISTENCE in the educational process.

 

A random connection. "Mental maps" remind me a bit of the textual organization in Jewish study: central idea with other stuff connected to it and stemming from it and then further interconnected. Although I prefer linear sequencing as my note-taking method, there is something strikingly "Talmudic" in these mental maps when done properly and they may help greater conceptual order.

[Ester Maria]

2. COMBINED INTUITIVE AND LOGICAL SEGMENTING LANGUAGE LEARNING or Why Latin and Greek should be translated first, formally learned second

 

Oy, this one is a can of worms. :lol:

As you all know by now, I am AGAINST the so-called "natural method" for learning classical languages. The crucial thing to understand is that what I am about to write here is NOT a negation of that. I am still as against natural method as one can be, BUT, I do believe a technique of ultra-literal translation and parallel reading can do wonders to language learning.

 

To explain what is Judaic and what is Western here - two completely different philosophies of "dead" (i.e. not primary communicative) language learning at hand. The Western approach has typically been rosa, rosae, rosae ad nauseam first (i.e. "learn your morphology and your syntax"), then translation of linguistically suitable passages from classical authors, and the ultimate goal has been composition or artistic translation. The Judaic approach has typically been that you take a Bible, mentally divide the text in small digestible chunks, and then you read a chunk and automatically translate to the child's spoken language, and so go through the text. This method is called "teitching" in Eastern Europe (from the Yiddish word teitch / Deutsch / "germanize"), because Hebrew was originally translated to Yiddish, the children's spoken language. Although there have been attempts at systematizing Hebrew grammar in the Jewish world, most of the Hebrew learned was intuitive and associative from early childhood, actually. The Aramaic layer later presented some difficulties and I am not sure of the history of learning Aramaic after Hebrew, BUT, what I do know for Hebrew is that intuition was placed above formal knowledge at least in the early years. Or ever. I know adults who can learn in Hebrew, but are barely aware of its structure, nearly all of their knowledge is internalized.

 

SIDE-EFFECTS OF EXTREMISM. In the Latin extreme, you get people who cannot read without parsing the sentences while they do, because they lack intuition. In the Hebrew extreme, you get "vague" intuition, but lack of feeling for grammatical (or even some lexical) nuance or precision. Both extremes are to AVOID if you ask me.

 

Why is this hard to implement? Well, to put it quite bluntly, most people (and even arguably most Latinists) simply do not posssess enough proficiency in the language or deep familiarity with their texts to be able to teitch them spontaneously. Then we also get stumbling blocks such as poetic diversity and syntactic complexity which play a huge role in which Ovid is harder to teitch than Bible.

 

BUT. This is for the Catholics among you. :D A possible application. If you know Latin, are willing to work on this and want your children to grow up with it and gain this intuitive understanding, look no further from Vulgata. Vulgata is a PERFECT text to teitch Latin, familiar content, simpler structure, easy to parse. I believe this exposure can make an excellent fundamental for later analytical study of Latin (or the two can be combined) and this is one possible way of getting the best from both worlds. Of course, one can continue to apply it even further down the road and children can often benefit immensely in their reading skills if encouraged to practice it themselves when they get stuck in reading a text or lost with all the grammatical signalling.

 

Many Western schools actually indirectly DO teitch in that they employ this method in a classroom when they ask students to parse and automatically translate this way. The missing link is in PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE of having HEARD it done a lot - even better if while not yet conscious of the grammatical signalling - as a child, had been READ TO texts in such a fashion. Formal grammar studying AND this type of translation are a killer combination in my experience. In my more arrogant moments I really think I have found THE secret to learning classical languages well in this fashion - just combine the best from the Judaic and the best from the Western tradition.

Of course, a downside is that a textbook cannot do it. It takes a person, it takes interaction, repetition and, maybe, a personal connection to what is being done. It is natural that such a method would arise in the context of a religious study of a holy text rather than pursuit for secular knowledge, but I still that doubling one's effort there translates to significantly better knowledge.

 

 

3. WHY SILENT LIBRARIES AND SILENT STUDY ARE NOT ALWAYS THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATING ATMOSPHERE or Noise is not always bad

 

Quite recently they opened a first "secular yeshiva" in Israel - the idea behind it was, in somebody's absolutely brilliant description, "to combine the openness of a university and the intellectuall energy of a yeshiva". Openness of a university - a secular context, free to question the whole framework things are based on, free from widespread dogmatism - but combined with a particular intellectual energy that is so typical of Jewish learning. It is a laudable attempt: to combine the openness and the attempt at the liberation of dogmatism of the classical Western tradition, but to also wish to perserve the drive, the passion, the noise, the arguing and the action of the Jewish tradition.

 

Silent study, organized moderated discussions and general "propriety" is fine and it has its place in a balanced curriculum. But so does its opposite. And that is what many people forget. Learning through loud arguments, in a room filled with many such arguments between many people, is a particular atmosphere. It takes a different kind of focus to be able to do it, and a certain willingness to break off that "propriety" and "reverence". Imagine it like a better version of a Socratic discussion. The fundamental differences are: (i) Socrates is not "above" or controlling the process, as often represented in our Western ideal - the discussion has its own rhythm and it organically grows from both people learning together; (ii) questioning positions is a two-way street and (iii) unlike Socrates who chatted a bit with everybody, this interaction grows from repetition and the partners' maturing together.

 

Which brings us to the next point tied to this one: 3.1 STUDY PARTNERSHIP

The technical term for this is "chavruta". It is OPPOSED to three things: one, individual research, two, explicit instruction and three, round table kind of thing. The point is that learning happens via reasoning challenges, pointing out to each other's mistakes and preferably growing together out of similar initial position. Although it is in principle not impossible to have a study partner on a different level of knowledge than you, this method is used to combine A STUDENT AND ANOTHER STUDENT, not a student and an older mentor. Think about using it for your children.

 

Visually, it ideally looks like this: you are sitting one OPPOSITE each other (not NEXT to each), each with a copy of the text (the TOTAL OPPOSITE of read alouds where you all snuggle together over one text!), at the same desk, facing each other. (Obviously, there are possible differences, but this is the ideal situation.) Even on a purely physical level, it starts a whole different kind of dynamic when there are two texts and direct eye contact. After a while of learning this way with somebody, you understand how fundamentally different it is. The atmosphere gets even better if there are many such pairs in the room and there is some healthy noise, but even without it. The method works ideally for reading dense texts together. It is the best applicable for philosophy classes, though theoretically you can approach any subject this way. The point is NOT to guide. Study partners are on the SAME level. Many people, and I among them, who are more tied to the tradition of frontal teaching, feel the urge to start "guiding" at some point - this actually HINDERS the process. Keep it in mind.

[Ester Maria]

4. THE PHYSICAL DIMENSION or Swaying, singing and reading aloud helps

 

I have this little theory that it has become an integral part of learning as a "boy thing" - one ought to keep in mind that we are discussing what used to be until fairly recently a typically male activity. And this brings some great insights into what may easen studying for boys, or girls who are more boy-like when it comes to processing, or anyone really. I am more in the silent camp, though I like swaying.

 

In my experience though rhythmic movement DOES help concentration greatly. On the outside it may look a bit weird, like an autistic thing, but it helps you to block out many other things and it helps with excess energy. A tune or a hand movemement associated with a text - same thing. Reading aloud - greater retention even if you do not have a desire to memorize the text. All three combined - priceless, to be used if you really wish to remember something.

 

We all know it, but what is "revolutionary", for many people, is the idea that you do not implement physical activity in your day during BREAKS, but channel it for your STUDYING. Many classical educators already do it - after all, classical conversations do something strikingly similar with history hand movements etc. - but it is maybe worth noticing that it can be furthered and adapted for individual study as well and that one can consciously program / associate some movements with some types of thought.

 

This does NOT mean that there is no use of a classical silent study or that children do not have to be able to focus even without these things - but sometimes it is worth it to channel the moving instincts the way they aid one's studying. Many people, especially boys, find that extremely helpful, so some experimenting with it may be in order for them. Or for others too, who simply wish to find different ways of making connections.

-------

 

That's it. If I think of more, I will add. If anyone else thinks of more, or knows examples from other learning traditions, we could have a killer comparison thread and seeing how we can combine the pedagogic wisdom of the world to create the best combination of methods to teach the content we wish.

 

I hope somebody comments on this / agrees / disagrees / SOMETHING, took me a while to type it. :D The title was supposed to attract people, because if I write "Some Judaic study methods applied to the classical education" people will reason nah, not Jewish, not relevant for me, but if I write "pointless musings", people will reason, now, what did that nut write this time and open the thread. Or so I think. :lol:

Edited November 6, 2011 by Ester Maria
typoes

[Jane in NC]

Far from pointless, Ester Maria, as your title indicates.

 

I found part 2 of your musings to be quite interesting. If I am interpreting correctly, we would label "whole-to-parts" language instruction "intuitive", yes? And for those of us who have not followed all of the debates on methodologies used in foreign language instruction, could you explain (or refer me to a post explaining) the "natural method" for learning classical languages.

 

Thanks,

Jane

[dieuog]

Why is this hard to implement? Well, to put it quite bluntly, most people (and even arguably most Latinists) simply do not posssess enough proficiency in the language or deep familiarity with their texts to be able to teitch them spontaneously.

I like the idea. Does it need to be completely spontaneous, though? Couldn't a well-done little YouTube series go some distance in this direction?

[elegantlion]

Fascinating, thank you for taking the time to write this.

 

I need to read again after I have coffee, but I particularly appreciate your comments on 3.1, study partnership. This is how I've taught, sitting across the table from each other each reading from the same text. I was pondering this dynamic the other day and wondering why it works so well for us. I'd be considered a peer more than mentor in some subjects, maybe that is why. :tongue_smilie: I often feel like I play dual roles, as a fellow learner and a facilitator. Sometimes I do in on purpose, proposing questions other students might have without giving an answer.

 

Off to turn on the printer and grab some coffee and read this again. :D

[iona]

a comment on study partnership and not guiding

my first thought was that it would only result in "pooling our collective ignorance", but maybe that is more a result of larger group discussions...or just my experience.

Is the text then somewhat a guide? Is the relationship between the study partners a driving factor? Is the back and forth, the struggle itself, as important as any realisations that come out of it?

 

and on "the noise"

Is it an important part of learning to speak/argue your point well?

 

Thanks for posting your musings.:)

[iona]

Off to turn on the printer and grab some coffee and read this again. :D

 

This is me too, but i'll be having tea. (constant comment)

[OrdinaryTime]

Thanks for sharing, Ester Maria. I read it this morning and have been thinking on and off about it all day. I am completely unfamiliar with Jewish study methods, but did watch the first few segments of The History of the Talmund today. Fascinating.

 

A few scattered points:

 

Physical Dimension:

My own experience bears out the usefulness of swaying, moving, gesturing. I tend to rock a bit while reading or thinking. Also, I find hand gestures extremely helpful when memorizing/studying information. I've been working with my kids on their first few presentations where they memorize a paragraph. Planning out hand gestures helps tremendously. Also, I find if I let my son rock or pace around while he first works at putting things together, he memorizes much better. Later we can work on posture, etc. In last month's issue of Intelligence, there was an article on hand gestures and its influence on increasing fluid intelligence.

 

Teitching to learn language:

I'm not completely clear on all the difference between the natural method vs. teitching, but your discussion of it reminded me of C.S. Lewis' autobiography in which he talks about a tutor he had in his teens who probably saved the wrecks of his education. He tutored with him in Greek and Latin, as well as learning French, Italian, and German. Anyway, Lewis was shocked that on the first day, the tutor just opened Homer, though Lewis had no previous experience with the dialect, and very quickly, without almost any explanation, just translated out a 100 lines with him. Then he left him to go over it and translate it as quickly as he could. They did this through all the classics. Large chucks of text (not grammar exercises), quickly translated, putting value on speed, not accuracy. Lewis' talked of the beauty of the approach: "The great gain was that I very soon became able to understand a great deal without (even mentally) translating it; I was beginning to think in Greek. Those in whom the Greek word lives only while they are hunting for it in the lexicon, and who then substitute the English word for it, are not reading Greek at all; they are only solving a puzzle. The very formula, "Naus means a ship" is wrong. Naus and ship both mean a thing, they do not mean one another. Behind Naus, as behind navis or naca, we want to have a picture of a dark, slender mass with a sail or oars, climbing the ridges, with no officius English word intruding."

 

This seems similiar to the concept behind teitching; one learns the language through actual texts, not seperate language exercises. One learns not through so much through direct translation. I would love this for my kids, but don't possess the skills myself, though maybe a little through taking them to the Latin Mass. A least that would help with a more intuitive grasp of pronuciation. I don't where I would find a classics tutor with the ability, or time, to teach in this way, either.

 

I had a few other thoughts, but will have to post later. Children call...

[Ester Maria]

I found part 2 of your musings to be quite interesting. If I am interpreting correctly, we would label "whole-to-parts" language instruction "intuitive", yes? And for those of us who have not followed all of the debates on methodologies used in foreign language instruction, could you explain (or refer me to a post explaining) the "natural method" for learning classical languages.

The most recent thread in which we discussed various Latin teaching methods was this one.

 

Natural method, in its extreme form, is a kind of "reviving" of Latin in which you learn Latin in Latin as though it were a spoken language. You do not keep it fixed within its historical context, but actively apply it to the modern context. It becomes a constructed language thus, with invented new terms, etc. It is very difficult to speak Latin actively without falling into some - in my amateur opinion - very tricky traps. Not impossible, but very difficult and within a limited context.

I like the idea. Does it need to be completely spontaneous, though? Couldn't a well-done little YouTube series go some distance in this direction?

Anything is better than nothing - but I think it takes that interactive moment and adaptation to the individual student, asking them to repeat it after you, then having them try do it and correct them, etc. So in an IRL situation, a some degree of spontaneity would be needed.

 

You bring up an interesting point, though. Technological options today have quite changed how we may learn. Maybe there are such things already that I do not know of?

I often feel like I play dual roles, as a fellow learner and a facilitator.

In my experience, one teaches the best when one is or subjectively feels that one needs to learn the most. When you have that "student" attitude towards life and academics in general, kwim? Maybe it has something to do with that?

Is the text then somewhat a guide? Is the relationship between the study partners a driving factor? Is the back and forth, the struggle itself, as important as any realisations that come out of it?

Yes, I think so. Of course, these discussions are not in a vacuum, they are in the context of learning which also includes some explicit lecturing - but as a first try, an active attempt at understanding something together guided by the text, I think that it enhances involvement and understanding. The whole process is more active than passive.

 

I do not think that the noise is important per se to learn how to speak, but that it sort of breaks the stereotype that one learns the best in a quiet self-study. I find many people who function better in an interactive and lively environment, though this probably comes down to an individual difference.

[Ester Maria]

C.S. Lewis' autobiography in which he talks about a tutor he had in his teens who probably saved the wrecks of his education. He tutored with him in Greek and Latin, as well as learning French, Italian, and German. Anyway, Lewis was shocked that on the first day, the tutor just opened Homer, though Lewis had no previous experience with the dialect, and very quickly, without almost any explanation, just translated out a 100 lines with him. Then he left him to go over it and translate it as quickly as he could. They did this through all the classics. Large chucks of text (not grammar exercises), quickly translated

That's neat!!

 

You can find in some authors examples of atypical approaches to classics studies (e.g. Montaigne comes to my mind - natural method for Latin, some kind of playish approach mixed with formal study for Greek - but the context was different), but I did not know about the details about Lewis - thanks for bringing it up. :)

[Mommyfaithe]

Just wanted to say Hi Ester....and thanks for posting. I haven't read your post yet....but I went to Yeshiva...and always felt drawn to the Judaic methods of teaching. Honey on the tongue....gentle guidance, All questions deserve answers...or more questions:D. I loved my Moreh and my Rebbe. I loved how they taught us to search God's word and ask constantly for wisdom, as Solomon asked for wisdom. They taught us to respect them by loving us. I am sure they would be very upset that I have received Christ as my Savior...but, I also know I came to that knowledge through the methods of study they taught me.

 

I try to teach my children in the way I was taught. Side by side, letter by letter, precept on precept...asking questions, searching for answers....

 

I am off to read your post....

 

Faithe

[Ester Maria]

Just wanted to say Hi Ester....and thanks for posting. I haven't read your post yet....but I went to Yeshiva...and always felt drawn to the Judaic methods of teaching. Honey on the tongue....gentle guidance, All questions deserve answers...or more questions:D. I loved my Moreh and my Rebbe. I loved how they taught us to search God's word and ask constantly for wisdom, as Solomon asked for wisdom. They taught us to respect them by loving us. I am sure they would be very upset that I have received Christ as my Savior...but, I also know I came to that knowledge through the methods of study they taught me.

 

I try to teach my children in the way I was taught. Side by side, letter by letter, precept on precept...asking questions, searching for answers....

 

I am off to read your post....

 

Faithe

Hi Faithe! Thank you for bringing up more stuff I forgot to include - what a great thing that somebody who was fully educated this way came to this thread!! :) Please add anything else you can think of, I left out a LOT of things while focusing on the few.

 

Aww, honey on the tongue and chocolate alephbet letters (when one learns to read) - so that LEARNING would always taste sweet in one's whole life... Those are awesome!

[Mommyfaithe]

Hi Faithe! Thank you for bringing up more stuff I forgot to include - what a great thing that somebody who was fully educated this way came to this thread!! :) Please add anything else you can think of, I left out a LOT of things while focusing on the few.

 

Aww, honey on the tongue and chocolate alephbet letters (when one learns to read) - so that LEARNING would always taste sweet in one's whole life... Those are awesome!

 

Just quickly...some things that come to mind...

 

When learning the Aleph bet....we sing.

When learning the Torah...we sing

When learning Talmud...we sing

 

Did I mention we sing?? And we sway...and we feel the Word...

 

When learning Genesis....we " chunked" phrases

Braishes...In the beginning

Bora Eloh*m ....G-d created

Et hashamaim.....the heavens

V'et ha oretz....and the earth

 

 

And so on.....

 

When it was memorized....easily because we did it very single day....singing...swaying...smiling....

All through the book of Genesis...from beginning to end.

 

We learned to read phonetically. Hebrew is phonetic....we then could read the Hebrew text...in Hebrew....though, we had no idea what it meant until we phrased...then the words became thought and meaning.

 

It was a long process and I was little...but it was fun. I was so proud when I had the entire first chapter of Genesis memorized in English and Hebrew! It was in my heart...and my soul.

 

I need to run a feed my hungry man cubs....:D

 

Can't wait to read what you wrote.

 

Faithe

[lllll]

..

[ElizaG]

Ester Maria, I was just going to ask if you could share something about traditional Jewish educational methods. I'm glad I came over to the HS board. :)

 

It seems as if much of this was carried over into Christian monastic education. Thomas Aquinas was sent to study with the Benedictines at Monte Cassino at age 5. I knew that Jewish boys traditionally started their studies at the same age, but until I found out a little about the methods you're talking about, I didn't understand how this could fit with the modern idea/observation that young boys aren't developmentally ready for formal sit-down schoolwork.

 

In The Gutenberg Galaxy, Marshall McLuhan says that silent reading wasn't the norm until the 16th century. He quotes a 20th century Benedictine, writing about Christian scholarship in the patristic and medieval eras:

 

"But most frequently, when legere and lectio are used without further explanation, they mean an activity which, like chant and writing, requires the participation of the whole body and the whole mind. Doctors of ancient times used to recommend reading to their patients as a physical exercise on an equal level with walking, running or ball-playing."

 

"What results is a muscular memory of the words pronounced and an aural memory of the words heard. (...) It is what inscribes, so to speak, the sacred text in the body and soul."

 

( Dom Jean Leclerq OSB, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God)

 

Interesting stuff on all counts. Please muse more! :)

[Colleen in NS]

...but if I write "pointless musings", people will reason, now, what did that nut write this time and open the thread. Or so I think. :lol:

 

Well, I don't think you are a nut, but you were right - I opened the thread because of the title and the author. :D

 

Will read more closely in a couple of days (busy two days coming up).

 

:lurk5:

[Rosie_0801]

Yes, I think so. Of course, these discussions are not in a vacuum, they are in the context of learning which also includes some explicit lecturing - but as a first try, an active attempt at understanding something together guided by the text, I think that it enhances involvement and understanding. The whole process is more active than passive.

 

Sometimes one doesn't know enough about a topic to even formulate questions. This style of discussion would move students through that stage of paralysis quickly, wouldn't it? There was nothing worse than tutorial groups at uni where no one could ask any questions because no one other than the tutor had any idea what sort of questions one should be needing to ask!

 

Rosie

[Nan in Mass]

I'm glad you titled your post the way you did. You are absolutely right. If it had had Jewish in it, I might, if I had nothing else to do and was feeling curious, have opened it, but otherwise I wouldn't have. Instead, I opened it because I have learned a lot from you about learning languages and about the value of having a common set of background knowledge so that one can use metaphores to communicate, not just descriptions. (I suddenly realized the other day that this is how my husband and I communicate. It is so much fun! And it has amazing advantages. We can just say a name or a place and a possible cause of a problem is explained and a possible solution proposed. Talk about efficient! If I say Eeyore to you (well, lol, maybe not to you), you will know that I think the child who is claiming he went swimming in his clothes on purpose really fell in by mistake. My children do this with the great books they have read and with children's stories and with Star Treks. They tended to use Star Treks or children's stories to tie together their great books. But anyway...)

 

Some answering thoughts...

 

Teiching - Tieching? (scroll not working well so I don't want to go back and check) - I accidentally discovered the power of this. I got tired of trying to teach my children French. They never remembered anything and it was extremely frustrating. I finally decided to just speak it to them, but although I could read French at about the Agatha Christie mystery level, I was unable to speak household French, so while I figured that out, I read childrens books to them. I just read a page in French and then translated. My youngest learned to understand French really fast that way. Now I am trying to deal with the results of that. Sigh - the method does not lead to an ability to write French without further work, which my son is reluctant to do. I would do it that way again in a heartbeat, though. I had to do a lot of reading myself before I got to the point he is at, the point of being able to feel the French without translating. He just read the first third of Tristan et Iseult (in modern French) without knowing the passé simple (the literary past tense) and it didn't bother him at all. He can't translate it sentence by sentence, but he can give me a very nice summary paragraph by paragraph, complete with nuances, using a dictionary for any of the more obscure terms (like squire or various pieces of armor). I am taking Spanish this semester and I just ordered a bunch of simply told bilingual fairy tales. The Spanish is way beyond where my class is, but it is a way of sort of cementing my vocabulary and turning my Spanish from classroom Spanish to useful Spanish.

 

Noisy learning - The student center of my univeristy sounded like that. So does the cafeteria of my community college. It is because of the study groups. I know they have been dreadfully maligned here, but I am a firm believer in them. They helped me immensely with my technical classes, the classes where the text was dense and hard to understand and we had to apply it to solve problems. (None of my liberal arts classes were as hard. Sorry Jane. I'm sure they could be. I just didn't happen to take any that were.) And I am very relieved that my youngest has discovered this. It was probably the most important thing he will learn this whole year. He says he never wants to be without a study group for a hard class again, that they make everything easier and more fun. He got over 100 on the last test (5 points of extra credit were offered). His study group, the only one in the chemistry class, got the top 4 marks in the class and kept the fifth person from flunking. I watched them in action and it looked a lot like you are describing - everyone with their book and notes open in front of them, arguing noisily about how something really worked or what the book really meant when it said that, hammering out the details and implications and connections. It isn't the same thing as the blind leading the blind at all.

 

Learning with movement - My older two sons are currently at a college that is only now beginning to have more girls (still dismal odds lol - 5 to 1). I was amused to see that the desk chairs in the dorms are meant to be tilted back - the back legs are shorter than the front legs and they are connected with the corner cut off. Bad description. Sorry. Hopefully you get it. It wasn't until I was in my 30s that I discovered that I can memorize something in about 1/3 the time if I walk while I am doing it. My children's ability to roll around on the floor, stride around the room, or rock in their small rocking chairs while we learned was one of the big advantages of homeschooling. At the end of their teens, it turned into a love of using a whiteboard for studying. I think part of that was that they were on their feet.

 

What fun! Lots of new ideas about learning. Well, not new exactly because we seem to have discovered some of them on our own. More like legitimizing some of the weirder things we do. Thousands of years worth of legitimizing LOL. Very very cool! Thank you!

 

Nan

[walkermamaof4]

No high schoolers for me yet, but I am trying to think through applying some of your points to our family's learning. Recently I purchase a copy of SOTW for each of my children. We read out loud. I have found we are learning so much more. We have also begun this with our Bible reading. I was tempted to buy 5 copies of our Apologia book as well as some others. Would they all be learning more if I did? How can we apply what you have experienced more fully? Thanks for any further insights you can offer, as well as for taking the time to post.

[FrogMom5]

Thank you for taking the time to write this, Ester Maria. I need some time to think it through more. My first thoughts are -

 

1. All of my kids need to move while studying (I let them chew gum and wiggle around). I will try letting them sway and see if it helps them concentrate more.

 

2. My oldest would do well studying in a place where he could read aloud. The noise you describe would actually help him focus. I'm not sure how to implement this at home though. I'll have to think on that one.

 

My younger kids might not be able to tolerate the noise level you describe since one is super sensitive and the other is very distractible. How do the children w/sensory issues fair in these schools? Does it help them? Or are they unable to tolerate the noise?

 

3. The partner idea strikes me as an excellent way to study. I will look at the materials you suggested to get a clearer idea of how that works.

 

4. Studying language - your idea of combining the 2 methods is excellent. I do think it will work much better than what we do currently. Can your method be used on a high school student who already studied some Latin using the traditional western method?

 

I need to go over the background knowledge you suggest too. I may have more questions later. Great post, Ester Maria. Thank you.

Denise

[Zoo Keeper]

Ester Maria,

 

Thanks for taking the time to think through all of that and then get it into chunks that even I can comprehend. :) I have unknowingly used some of these teaching/learning methods at times. It was survival. I have very wiggly, fidgety boys who think out loud and often work together on quite a few subjects.

 

And I thought that I need to have them shut up, be still, and mind your own business...

 

Maybe I just need to declare our home a yeshiva...

 

Keep the musings coming. It gives me much to chew on.

[Critterfixer]

Could you comment on diachrony vs synchronic approaches in the teaching of history? My brain is small, but I got the impression that diachrony would cover one time period in order, and the synchronic approach would have no problem with stating, "meanwhile in..."

I often am frustrated with the first approach and enjoy studying things "side by side", flipping from one to the next and not getting lost, because it's happening at the same time.

(Edited Tues AM--I got to thinking about it last night and concluded that the above approach is actually diachronic, because it is still tied to a time-line. So would a synchronic approach to history look more like this: studying the Roman Empire side by side with United States history, or perhaps pairing the culture of the Inca's to communism in the Soviet Union?)

 

Noise...mmm. It's funny, but I actually did a lot of my best studying in noisy places. However, it was not because I found them stimulating. Noise was painful. In quiet, I would tend to drift, but when the noise was deafening, I would sort of concentrate myself and become insulated by a barrier of focus. Probably not a desired effect of the noise you describe, but even for a person who totally shuts down externally with noise, there still could be a purpose for it. My neurotypical son often flies apart with the noise of his brother calculating out-loud, and although I do allow him to go to another room to work, I also remind him that being able to concentrate in a noisy place is a skill well worth acquiring.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Critterfixer

[memphispeg]

My comment on study habits has to do with learning "anything". I think if you go into studying something with the idea of "interacting" with it, you have a good start. For reading literature, reading out loud, answering study questions, discussing a piece in class (at any level, technical or non-technical), for STEM, thought experiments, problems.

I am a "creative" type. I like to read up on a subject and then use what I've learned to "create" experiments, papers (research or creative), alternative renditions of the text. What I would like to instill in dd is that books and knowledge are not dead....they are meant to be used and played with. This may sound like "dumbing" down but, it can be harder and more complicated than memorizing and reiterating. This method requires that you "know" a subject. This may also be my X chromosomes talking????

[flyingiguana]

Something about music and noise and yeshivas made me think of this:

 

 

 

But my kids keep asking why that one guy is in a NASA suit.

[Kfamily]

Thank you so much Ester Maria! You give me much on which to think and reflect.

[MicheleinMN]

Thank you, Ester Maria.

 

I am looking forward to printing out your posts, so I can really read them. (Meaning I need a pencil in hand to read and think at the same time.) :D

[Ester Maria]

Thank you everyone for your responses! :D

 

I am sorry I made it so long for some of you to have to print it to read it, LOL. I hope it will prove worth the ink in the end...

Sometimes one doesn't know enough about a topic to even formulate questions. This style of discussion would move students through that stage of paralysis quickly, wouldn't it?

I see your line of reasoning here. I think it makes a LOT of sense, on two counts - one, what you mention, and two, the fact that it is done with somebody who is (ideally) more "on your level", if you get what I mean. I think that there is quite a false assumption in a lot of academia today that one can only learn from people significantly above their level who can, even if indirectly, "guide" the process. Also, one needs to keep in mind that students are typically not paired up randomly - it is a process of seeing who fits with whom, whose way of thinking fits with somebody else, so often those collaborations extend for years and two people get to work on many things together.

 

I think that merging of the two, again, is better than either extreme per se - I think kids can profit from both an experience of somebody closer to their level, but who "clicks" with them, and disentangling the problem with them, and an experience of (whether ex cathedra or guided / engaged) lecture by somebody who knows a lot more. The two are typically combined, though not necessarily on the same content: there may be content which, at some stage, you just do not go through with somebody above your level, but leave it at what you could have figured out on your own (and possibly return to it months or years later with a fresh look at it). This personal dynamic with the material in itself is very beneficial, I find.

(Edited Tues AM--I got to thinking about it last night and concluded that the above approach is actually diachronic, because it is still tied to a time-line. So would a synchronic approach to history look more like this: studying the Roman Empire side by side with United States history, or perhaps pairing the culture of the Inca's to communism in the Soviet Union?)

Yep, you got it. :)

 

I think it is possible, but again, I would be very careful: I think that in the case of history, a good diachrony first is a sine qua non for a good synchrony, because without the chronological approach one cannot assume that the two phenomena really had in common what they did as they may be involuntarily filtering out a lot of additional influences on each.

I think that this kind of synchrony-related connections arise quite naturally, though I am quite skeptical as to making a synchrony-based course in high school - before a solid diachrony, that is. I do not entirely rule out an option it might work for somebody, but I am quite skeptical.

 

Jewish history IS studied chronologically, though. But what you mention is an interesting possible application.

Something about music and noise and yeshivas made me think of this:

 

That one used to a big hit here last year. :D

[Create Your Ritual]

Just listening in and wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying it! ;-)

[Critterfixer]

I think it is possible, but again, I would be very careful: I think that in the case of history, a good diachrony first is a sine qua non for a good synchrony, because without the chronological approach one cannot assume that the two phenomena really had in common what they did as they may be involuntarily filtering out a lot of additional influences on each.

I think that this kind of synchrony-related connections arise quite naturally, though I am quite skeptical as to making a synchrony-based course in high school - before a solid diachrony, that is. I do not entirely rule out an option it might work for somebody, but I am quite skeptical.

 

 

I think so too. But this kind of synchronic stuff happens all the time when I'm discussing history with my Dad. And both of us learn a lot by it. Of course, trying to pair two cultures from two time periods is fraught with the potential for "stinkin thinkin".