Robinson, TJE, DEAR–What Happens When Students "Just" Read?

[stm4him]

Sometimes the purpose of studying a subject is for the purpose of opening doors for reading or for unlocking things they will come across in their reading.  For example,  I put Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (not all at the same time) on my list of "basics" because I want to open the door of reading the Bible and other ancient works in their original languages because that is something I wish I could do and hope to be able to do someday.  The people who can do that (C.S. Lewis for example) talk about how amazing and eye-opening it is to read books in their original languages and draw your own conclusions.  For me, the key is to make that study as independent and self-directed as possible.  There are many other benefits, but that is the main one in my opinion.  I want them to study a little French because they will come across it in the classics.  When I read Jane Eyre recently I couldn't decipher the French and wish I could have. I don't actually expect them to be able to speak it unless they end up with a love for it.

 

I put science in there because honestly that is one that my kids (at least my oldest two) and myself have the hardest time being naturally drawn to and at some point I think it is valuable to see the order and design of our universe; but also for the simple fact that it is required for college and though my children have the freedom to reject college, I want them to be prepared in case they decide otherwise when they find their passion and mission in life.

 

Logic, rhetoric, Spanish, and spelling were the only other things I mentioned, I think.  (And I know you weren't talking to directly to me but I am just thinking aloud about my choices beyond the 3 R's and Bible).  Spelling is just one of my things.  As a teacher and a natural speller I just really believe it is important for written communication.  Spanish is there because my husband is fluent in it and I think it would be awesome if they could use it together for ministry purposes; perhaps to even teach English or something of that nature.  And of course there is a huge population of Spanish speakers here now.  Logic and rhetoric are subjects which can be read about but I believe you actually have to do something with to get the full benefit.  Being able to reason clearly and speak eloquently are important to me as part of my children's education.  It is part of what draws me to use an outside program because it is perhaps best done in a group setting.  But one could easily take a one semester class of each in high school and not have it overshadow the basics.  I learned to speak pretty well through many opportunities to speak during high school but I never learned formal logic or debate skills.  Homeschoolers don't have that same opportunity without going out of their house or at least being hooked up online with a group of people somehow.  So that those subjects I think are worth pursuing at some point.

 

There is beauty in independent learning and there is beauty in discussion.  When a child is exposed to their peers for the purpose of discussing classics, reasoning, and speaking (on a limited, guided basis) it is usually very profitable as compared to only hearing from the people within the walls of their home.  It causes them to evaluate their positions against a wider variety of opinions and then to stand for them and communicate them to others.  I do believe one can gain an incredible education through solid self-teaching materials in math and language arts and lots and lots of varied reading, but at some point it is worth it to come out and use discussion in a group setting about the ideas and concepts they have been gaining as another tool for growth.  The problem is that putting oneself in a group setting can mean the curriculum, assignments, and schedule is dictated and there is almost always a financial cost involved.....

 

And what about music?  And art?  Aren't those necessary?  The problem is we want it to be so simple and I think thinking with a simplicity mind-set is always helpful to anything lasting, but in reality it isn't as simple as the 3 R's and Bible.  There is just too much out there to explore.......

[Dory]

A large portion of my education came from my love of reading. I read everything I could get my hands on. Before I was school age, I used to get in trouble for hiding to read when I was suppose to be outside playing. We lived 30min from the nearest library and although we had a lot of books in our house, it obviously wasn't enough books. I had read everything we owned by the time I was halfway through elementary including my mom's nursing textbooks. I didn't always understand it, but I retained a fair amount simply because I was reading it because I wanted to, not because someone made me do it or because there was a form I needed to fill out afterwards. My craving for more reading material has made me a little bit of a book hoarded I think. I have tried to make sure my kids have a rich variety of books within their grasp.

 

I learned an odd amount of information about food storage from reading the Little House On the Prairie series when I was little (and my mom and grandma). I learned about first aid techniques from reading old vet manuals and nursing books long before I was old enough to take a first aid course. I learned how to tan a hide from reading a novel (I even tried it out to see if I could do it), how to make a snare, make my own moccasins (they were a pretty ugly looking pair but they worked), how to resuscitate a calf, and perform a c-section on a sheep all from books that I had read before junior high school. I learned a little bit about psychology and it's beginnings, a lot about history from various different places and angles, and even how to form a conversation in different ways for different people. I remember reading through books and comparing similar conversations and how things were worded and how people responded. It taught me how to choose my words in tense conversations to influence how others might respond. I learned more about how people thought and felt from reading different books than I did on my own in life.

 

I had formal teaching with music, math, grammar, language, and the sciences. I appreciate the education those gave me, but the books filled my life and gave me tools that the studies alone never gave me. I think I became more efficient at applying information I learn through study from all the books I read as a kid. Learning how to think through things and apply them is a skill that has served me well.

 

I'm just rambling really, I suppose. The topic strikes a bit of a chord with me.

[SorrelZG]

I read a lot but apparently nothing of great value because it's all forgettable until 11th grade and senior English when we had to read things like Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, 1984, and Brave New World and then actually think about them. Rumor had it that this particular teacher had wanted a job with a university, not a high school, and that this explained our reading list and the expectations to think, discuss and write about weighty themes. I think this disgruntled rumor reveals something about the quality of my public schooling. So, apparently "just reading" benefited me, personally within my own circumstances, as little as my formal education (in the largest part).

[SorrelZG]

I think it depends on the kid, how well they comprehend what they read, and whether or not they have an interested other person to listen to them and their ideas. Some books left alone in the hands of a child can lead to some very weird ideas....but those same weird ideas can be the sparks of some great learning and conversation/ writing.

I agree (especially having read Frankenstein). DH was just commenting to me (I hadn't talked to him about these things) that many of those whose success stories he has heard had at least one person invested in them. A mentor, perhaps. I personally lacked both good books and an interested other. A varied community would be even better.

[Hunter]

Hmmm...maybe that's part of why I'm so weird. I was reading all those books and had no one to discuss them with. LOL.

CM says to get out of the way and NOT change how the student and the book interact. Over and over though, I think CM just could not imagine me as a child or an adult though, and she couldn't be factoring in my mess or my world. Never mind if I agree with her in general. or think her ideas are able to work 100 years later.

[KellieK]

I read everything I could as a child. I had a wonderful librarian in elementary school, a great senior Enlish teacher, and one friend that guided my choices. I only discussed books with my friend, though, and we were both clueless. I wish that I had had a mentor of sorts. I found that in college, I did several independent study courses where I read, wrote an discussed with a professor. It was like heaven, now if only I were still interested in the subject I studied in college, someone to guide me in that decision would have been good as well.

It is my goal to give my children the opportunity to not only read, but gain wisdom from what they read. I let them chose their own books to read, but I choose what I read to them. We spend about 2-3 hours each day reading various books. I spend so much time reading out loud to them that my "work" often gets neglected. Right now one of the books we are reading is Heidi and somedays we spend almost an hour on this book alone between the text and then discussing the story. What I wish I were better at is incorporating more non-fiction into our day.

[Hunter]

The idea of having had a mentor makes me feel anxious rather than envious. I used to be SO against CMs insistence that a teacher should not get between the student and the books, but I'm starting to understand more, as time goes on. I was NOT mentored though my books. :lol: I do remember a few comments by my grandmother, though, as I was absorbed for days with a textbook on facial reconstruction techniques on children. :)

[SorrelZG]

CM, it seems, never read Frankenstein.

[Hunter]

CM, it seems, never read Frankenstein.

 

 I was just thinking that. :lol: When was it published? Before her time, right? But, she must have at least known about Poe. I don't think these authors were used in her curriculum, though.

[SorrelZG]

What did CM say about book selection? My impression was that she was very careful and purposeful in her selections - that's a little like mentoring, sort of. It's an interested influence, at least. There is also a difference between destroying a story for the child by supplying a continual commentary on the one hand, and providing discussion, challenging ideas, sharing varying view points, additional factual information, etc. on the other. The latter is like "iron sharpening iron". In the case of a child who is not reading only from a carefully restricted reading list, it is also another way of shepherding. Not that I'm inclined to argue with CM, she just isn't raising and educating my children. I am and I just do things differently. It's taken a little while but I can now say that without an ounce of misplaced guilt. :)

Eta: Frankenstein was published in 1818 (I think).

[stripe]

Without getting into the specific political aspects of each method/curriculum, what happens when students spend a huge portion of their day "just" reading?

I know someone who engaged in a great deal of solitary reading, and is rather startlingly brilliant. However, she does mispronounce a lot of words. I also think what one reads matters. Reading loads of low-level stuff, romance novels and cozy murder mysteries, will not be likely to boost the intellect tremendously, in general. I think it's important to encourage kids to read non-fiction material too.

 

There is a passing reference to this in Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; he talks about his own education and how much more he gained from independent reading.

[AngelBee]

I am loving this conversation! Typing left handed with twin baby in my hand. Lol Will try to share thoughts later. :)

[tricia]

I guess I'll chime in.  I've been homeschooling my 12 kids from the get go. My last 10 did NOT use textbooks compared to the first 2.  I am still schooling my youngest kids.  All of my grads have gone to college and done very well.  My main curriculum in a nutshell for all my kids basically looks like this:

 

Reading

Writing 

Arithmetic

Write an essay a day once they were in high school 

 

They did latin and french but the majority of their education cam from reading whole, living books.  We used a combination of TJ Education, Ambleside Online, and Old Fashioned Education .com and memoria press latin 

 

Hope this helps,

 

 

[Arcadia]

I know as a child, that all that reading I did is what set me apart from the other low-income and neglected children.

That is where I see well-run public libraries as being a great leverage for lower income or ESL or migrant families. The reading programs are there, the materials are there, spelling, reading, writing and all other curriculum are there. Plenty of good books are there. Encyclopedia sets are there.

I have friends that were on welfare as a child.  Some are orphans and some are from gang (parent in jail) families.  The libraries were where they go to after school, weekends and school holidays. They made it through college successfully.

[stripe]

I thought of Yesterday's Classics recently while I was reading Jon Mooalem's Wild Ones; he talks specifically about the Seton books and about how some authors of that period, including Ernest Seton and William Long, depicted wild animals in wildly inaccurate, anthropomorphized ways. It struck me as unfortunate that these types of books are the choice of certain curricula/schools of thought, which appeal more to emotions than facts. I think it's the same issue as reading historical fiction and believing that's how it all happened.

[Hunter]

I know someone who engaged in a great deal of solitary reading, and is rather startlingly brilliant. However, she does mispronounce a lot of words. I also think what one reads matters. Reading loads of low-level stuff, romance novels and cozy murder mysteries, will not be likely to boost the intellect tremendously, in general. I think it's important to encourage kids to read non-fiction material too.

There is a passing reference to this in Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; he talks about his own education and how much more he gained from independent reading.

I try to think of my pronunciation as creative. :) It's pretty bad. I'm realizing I can fix that with just free whispersync sets from Amazon and am going to simply prioritize fiction reading/listening for the next year.

I can't do anything about my weird stroke like speech word choices, though. Some people are good at just translating my speech, but others people are like, "WHAT!!!" And I think I said it right, so I don't even know how to clarify. Writing is SO much easier for me. I do the word substitution less, and I can catch it when editing. Oh, well. I'm just going to work on what I CAN change.

I think I'm going to start a thread on good non-fiction titles carried by overdrive. It looks like my library will purchase almost anything I ask for if they don't have it.

I ordered Hake Grammar and Writing 7 for my own self-education. For my own self-education I want to complete Hake 7 and 8, and Saxon Algebra 1 and 2, in the next 4 years. If I skip the tests, I just need to do 2 lessons a week in each. Then I just want to read. Some non-fiction, yes, especially narrative types with audio from overdrive and audible.com to listen to as I read.

My plan is to read a LOT fewer books on educational theory, and stop worrying about checklists, and just cover the 3Rs with myself and students, and then just have everyone READ, and to read REAL books. To just read the best of what is available TODAY, and focus on TODAY. Shortsighted? Negligent? Maybe. I don't care. I want to see what happens.

[Hunter]

I thought of Yesterday's Classics recently while I was reading Jon Mooalem's Wild Ones; he talks specifically about the Seton books and about how some authors of that period, including Ernest Seton and William Long, depicted wild animals in wildly inaccurate, anthropomorphized ways. It struck me as unfortunate that these types of books are the choice of certain curricula/schools of thought, which appeal more to emotions than facts. I think it's the same issue as reading historical fiction and believing that's how it all happened.

There is audio for this title, but it doesn't look like overdrive carries it. Too bad. I'm looking for a science nonfiction title to read along with audio.

[stripe]

There is audio for this title, but it doesn't look like overdrive carries it. Too bad. I'm looking for a science nonfiction title to read along with audio.

I greatly enjoyed reading it. I am a person who rolls her eyes at movies like Free Willy. 

 

Have you read anything by Mary Roach?  Audiobooks of her works are at my library on CD and via Overdrive.

[Hunter]

I greatly enjoyed reading it. I am a person who rolls her eyes at movies like Free Willy. 

 

Have you read anything by Mary Roach?  Audiobooks of her works are at my library on CD and via Overdrive.

 

Thanks for the tip. I'm really hoping to do my science reading free and with audio if I can.

[Korrale]

Read, discuss, think, write. Done!

Yes! We get a lot learnt this way.

[scrapbabe]

Yes! We get a lot learnt this way.

So for those of us who have no experience discussing books and drawing out meaningful conversations, what can I as the teacher use as a reference to learn how to do this?

[Korrale]

I was (still am) an avid reader. All my life I have been. In high school I read the entire macropaedia by Britannica. It was about the third set of encyclopedias I had read through. The others were older and for a younger audience. I also read all the books in the Great Book series. And I still had time for a lot of fluffy fiction. Mostly Fantasy and Sci Fi.
Reading a lot has been great for my to learn a huge array of information and I never noticed any detriment, other than horrendous pronunciation, until I did college. In college I had to cite ALL my sources. I lost a lot of points due to this. Even being knocked down to a D from an HD a few times. Several of my college professors said the same thing. It wasn't that my information was incorrect, it was that my sources weren't cited. My source were in my head as it was something I had read many years prior and I had no idea where.

[Korrale]

So for those of us who have no experience discussing books and drawing out meaningful conversations, what can I as the teacher use as a reference to learn how to do this?

Hmm. My son is little and I see your kids are older. For us we read. And then we talk about it. I am always making sure that my son can summarize what he has read. And I ask him probing questions and he does the same to me. Mind you, he is only 4. He can't write but he narrates to me and type it out for him.

There is a course that really has an emphasis on doing something similar with older children. It is heavily based in the Socratic method. I really can't think of it off the top of my head. Maybe someone know what I am talking about. I believe the course is a video course...,
The Good Books and Great books have programs that teach this way also. But you are limited to their suggestions.

[ElizabethB]

So for those of us who have no experience discussing books and drawing out meaningful conversations, what can I as the teacher use as a reference to learn how to do this?

I have read several books and seen several presentations about this.

Strangely enough, the clearest, most interesting and down to earth description in how to do this is a book I read about common core! The Story Killers by Terrence Moore.

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Killers-Common-Sense-Case-Against-Common-ebook/dp/B00GB1QS9E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395979355&sr=1-1&keywords=the+story+killers

He explains it later on in the book; when explaining why the new LA and even some current LA practices are bad and kill the soul of stories while not learning much, then explains in simple down to earth language with actual books how to discuss them with students in a way that interests them and does not kill the story. I love reading, and I always hated the way we studied books in school, he offered concrete reasons why and good alternatives.

[sunnyday]

I like the way Michael Clay Thompson discusses literature in Classics in the Classroom; also How to Read a Book and WEM are great. I got How to Read and Why today along with How to Read Literature like a Professor for Kids...will report back. :) so far I just show my enthusiasm and let my kid show his. It's all good. :)

[kubiac]

I have read several books and seen several presentations about this.

Strangely enough, the clearest, most interesting and down to earth description in how to do this is a book I read about common core! The Story Killers by Terrence Moore.

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Killers-Common-Sense-Case-Against-Common-ebook/dp/B00GB1QS9E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395979355&sr=1-1&keywords=the+story+killers

He explains it later on in the book; when explaining why the new LA and even some current LA practices are bad and kill the soul of stories while not learning much, then explains in simple down to earth language with actual books how to discuss them with students in a way that interests them and does not kill the story. I love reading, and I always hated the way we studied books in school, he offered concrete reasons why and good alternatives.

 
A book I enjoyed that may make a similar case is Readicide: How Schools Are Killing Reading and What You Can Do About It.
 
 

[Korrale]

Silly mega-reader mispronunciations or other word confusions...just because it's been mentioned a few times in this thread.

At one memorable family dinner when I was around 11, I confused the words 'emancipated' and 'emaciated'. Gentle correction ensued :)

Dd14 did this the other day, telling us about the wonderful new frozen yoghurt place she went to with a friend. Apparently, one of the toppings was 'lacerated' strawberries!

I love these. I know I did this more than a few times. I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Well.. My son did this. He had read Tom Kitten by Beatrix Potter and he kept asking me if if could go to bed with "meals-es" because it was a lot of fun. I thought he was just trying to say meals, but in a funny way. A week later I sat down and read the book with him. He wasn't talking about supper. He was taking about measles.

[Hunter]

I have read several books and seen several presentations about this.

Strangely enough, the clearest, most interesting and down to earth description in how to do this is a book I read about common core! The Story Killers by Terrence Moore.

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Killers-Common-Sense-Case-Against-Common-ebook/dp/B00GB1QS9E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395979355&sr=1-1&keywords=the+story+killers

He explains it later on in the book; when explaining why the new LA and even some current LA practices are bad and kill the soul of stories while not learning much, then explains in simple down to earth language with actual books how to discuss them with students in a way that interests them and does not kill the story. I love reading, and I always hated the way we studied books in school, he offered concrete reasons why and good alternatives.

You are the second person to recommend this book. I asked the library to buy it, but they didn't. I think I'm going to buy this book at some point, but I promised myself to just read real books for now and not more theory. I'm putting it on my wishlist though.

[Hunter]

A book I enjoyed that may make a similar case is Readicide: How Schools Are Killing Reading and What You Can Do About It.

My library has this one! I'm not reading it yet, though. I'm not. Willpower.

[Hunter]

I'm just really against using modern literary techniques to evaluate older books, right now. I think it interferes with what the author is trying to tell the reader. I'm not doing right now. I'm just not. I refuse.

I'm still working on what to focus on for output, as all the prepared templates no longer work for me.

Korrale, that whole reference the source thing was a problem for me, too. Sigh!

[sunnyday]

You are the second person to recommend this book. I asked the library to buy it, but they didn't. I think I'm going to buy this book at some point, but I promised myself to just read real books for now and not more theory. I'm putting it on my wishlist though.

 

According to the Googles, the book is based on a lecture that is available on video. I think I'm planning to watch it rather than drop the $7-12 on the book.

[scrapbabe]

I'm just really against using modern literary techniques to evaluate older books, right now. I think it interferes with what the author is trying to tell the reader. I'm not doing right now. I'm just not. I refuse.

I'm still working on what to focus on for output, as all the prepared templates no longer work for me.

Korrale, that whole reference the source thing was a problem for me, too. Sigh!

. I'm not interested in modern literary techniques either, but maybe a list of Socratic questions. I was reading the old Circe thread and one suggestion was to ask Should x have done y? Yes/no. Explain. ie Should Edward have gone with the white witch? Should Goldilocks have gone in the bear's house? Some general ideas/questions like that would be awesome for those of us who are new to discussing great literature.

[stripe]

One of my kids reads non-fiction extensively and retains it, but another has favored fiction and folklore has decided to emulate the other and read more non-fiction. I wonder about the degree to which someone retains information when it's been read independently. I am not at all suggesting it isn't retained, and I did enjoy reading Book Whisperer  a few years ago. I just wonder about it.

[NCMom]

. I'm not interested in modern literary techniques either, but maybe a list of Socratic questions. I was reading the old Circe thread and one suggestion was to ask Should x have done y? Yes/no. Explain. ie Should Edward have gone with the white witch? Should Goldilocks have gone in the bear's house? Some general ideas/questions like that would be awesome for those of us who are new to discussing great literature.

 

I don't know if this is "right", but one thing we have been doing since the Circe thread in addition to asking "Should X have done Y?" is asking various permutations of:

 

What is that like?

 

What does that remind you of?

 

Have you/we seen this before?"

 

During the second Classical Panel session at the Greenville Conference this year, Andrew Kern said that "everything is like everything else" (hope I heard that correctly, the sound system was terrible)...

This extremely simple idea is the one that has sparked our hs these last few years. This has been the idea that has most enhanced my younger dd's reading and stimulated the most discussion. Though she has LD's, her connections are often better/deeper/more wide ranging than mine, I think because as she is an artist.

 

On that note, yet as an aside, it's also easier for ~her~ to read deeply when she see and makes the connections.  To her many pre-made curriculum either have these forced, almost phony connections or are so disconnected as to be chaos.

 

hth,

Georgia

[ElizabethB]

. I'm not interested in modern literary techniques either, but maybe a list of Socratic questions. I was reading the old Circe thread and one suggestion was to ask Should x have done y? Yes/no. Explain. ie Should Edward have gone with the white witch? Should Goldilocks have gone in the bear's house? Some general ideas/questions like that would be awesome for those of us who are new to discussing great literature.

This is exactly what Moore describes!

[scrapbabe]

This is exactly what Moore describes!

Oh great! I'll take a look at it. Thanks

[scrapbabe]

I don't know if this is "right", but one thing we have been doing since the Circe thread in addition to asking "Should X have done Y?" is asking various permutations of:

What is that like?

What does that remind you of?

Have you/we seen this before?"

During the second Classical Panel session at the Greenville Conference this year, Andrew Kern said that "everything is like everything else" (hope I heard that correctly, the sound system was terrible)...
This extremely simple idea is the one that has sparked our hs these last few years. This has been the idea that has most enhanced my younger dd's reading and stimulated the most discussion. Though she has LD's, her connections are often better/deeper/more wide ranging than mine, I think because as she is an artist.

On that note, yet as an aside, it's also easier for ~her~ to read deeply when she see and makes the connections. To her many pre-made curriculum either have these forced, almost phony connections or are so disconnected as to be chaos.

hth,
Georgia

. Hmm. This is very interesting. Maybe listening to and reading some articles from Circe would help. I'm not too familiar with all things Circe.

[Hunter]

One of my kids reads non-fiction extensively and retains it, but another has favored fiction and folklore has decided to emulate the other and read more non-fiction. I wonder about the degree to which someone retains information when it's been read independently. I am not at all suggesting it isn't retained, and I did enjoy reading Book Whisperer  a few years ago. I just wonder about it.

 

I know as a child, I retained almost all I read independently. I retained what I read independently better than what i was taught in school. In school I was trying to obey and please. My only goal was to obey and please. I wasn't able to approach the school books the same way I did the independently read ones. I just frantically skimmed them looking for the "correct" answers.

[Hunter]

I don't think the Socrates stuff is what I am looking for. I'll know it when I see it. Like the Michael Dirda list, I had a vague idea, and I knew what I wasn't looking for. And when I saw the Dirda list, for must-read literature, I just about starting sqealing, "That's IT!!!!"

 

Even though my ideas are radical by modern USA standards they are not unique or new ideas. I just have to wait till I find the author who has already written about it.

[idnib]

I'd like to post this quotation from Michael Clay Thompson's Classics in the Classroom. It has always resonated with me and I was reminded of it when someone upthread talked about 90/90/90 schools. (I don't know how much it has to do with the original post though.)

 

After this passage he goes on to talk about his experience teaching a "basic" class with excellent literature and Socratic discussions. Someone came into the class and thought it was the gifted class he was also teaching at the school. I don't have the wherewithal to rekey all of it so I'll just do this first part.

 

 

The Elitist Curriculum Fallacy

A note on the elitist curriculum fallacy. I know, I hear it too: the classics are an elitist curriculum, inappropriate for many students and groups of students, unsuited for the majority of futures that students in our schools will actually attain. Most students should not or need not be taught classics; instead, they should be taught things more practical and useful for the lives they will lead.

The first point, of course, is that educating all students to a high standard is not elitist - it is teaching great books and great ideas only to honors and gifted college-bound students that is elitist. Let me emphasize a point I mentioned earlier: I have taught all ability levels for nearly 20 years, and I know that all students love beautiful books and beautiful ideas; all students love a challenge; all students love to have a pride in their own minds; all students love the feeling that they are learning. Elitist? What's so democratic about deliberating limiting the education of some students? Making assumptions about the futures that kids with lower reading levels will attain is an insidious form of bias - by depriving them of a genuinely strong education, we create a self-fulfilling tragic prophecy. Classics aren't practical? What's so practical about being poorly educated?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sunnyday]

I know as a child, I retained almost all I read independently. I retained what I read independently better than what i was taught in school. In school I was trying to obey and please. My only goal was to obey and please. I wasn't able to approach the school books the same way I did the independently read ones. I just frantically skimmed them looking for the "correct" answers.

 

Thompson calls teachers who teach this way "fishers" and warns against "fishing". He points out that Socratic questioning requires the humility of knowing that you do NOT have the answers...quoting Socrates via Plato, "I only know that I know nothing."

[scrapbabe]

I don't think the Socrates stuff is what I am looking for. I'll know it when I see it. Like the Michael Dirda list, I had a vague idea, and I knew what I wasn't looking for. And when I saw the Dirda list, for must-read literature, I just about starting sqealing, "That's IT!!!!"

Even though my ideas are radical by modern USA standards they are not unique or new ideas. I just have to wait till I find the author who has already written about it.

Seriously, let me know when you find it because I don't really know what I want. The Socratic method seems to be the way a lot of people go, but I don't know much about it. I thought I would look at it and see. But so far nothing has resonated with me. I should at least do something though while I'm searching for "it". Some discussion is better than waiting for the perfect discussion.

[Hunter]

I think "Socratic" is like "classical". It's used for all sorts of different methods, that are all quite different.

I've changed my worldview so many times, and this last recent worldview change was one of the most jarring. I just cannot inflict any worldview on literature written by an author from another worldview.

I envy people who have maintained a single worldview their whole lives and just teach from that. It keeps things simple and they feel grounded.

I guess my worldview right now is that I know nothing and neither does anyone else. So lets read some of the most influential books and let the author speak for himself and you listen for yourself. And instead of taking a lot of time to study this book, let's just read another one, because despite being influential, I'm not so sure ANY authors have anything all that special to say.

My way is not "right" or better than someone else's. It's just the only way I know how to proceed right now.

[Hunter]

For the younger student, I like the Journey to Bookland instructions for retelling stories. Retelling stories is different than analyzing them.
Journeys through Bookland Vol. 10 ORAL LESSONS pg. 352-360
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24857/24857-h/24857-h.htm#Oral_Lessons

I used to read some book report and discussion templates and think they were incomplete and lite, and sneered at them. I'm going to have to look at some of them again, to use for now.

I just don't have the word for what I'm looking for. Like before the Dirda list, I just wasn't able to articulate "patterning works". "Great Books" was close, but NOT it. There are tons of "Great Books" and influential books that are not patterning.

It took me years to find Dirda. I hope it doesn't take me years to find a discussion focus.

[scrapbabe]

I think "Socratic" is like "classical". It's used for all sorts of different methods, that are all quite different.

I've changed my worldview so many times, and this last recent worldview change was one of the most jarring. I just cannot inflict any worldview on literature written by an author from another worldview.

I envy people who have maintained a single worldview their whole lives and just teach from that. It keeps things simple and they feel grounded.

I guess my worldview right now is that I know nothing and neither does anyone else. So lets read some of the most influential books and let the author speak for himself and you listen for yourself. And instead of taking a lot of time to study this book, let's just read another one, because despite being influential, I'm not so sure ANY authors have anything all that special to say.

My way is not "right" or better than someone else's. It's just the only way I know how to proceed right now.

I can't even fathom maintaining a single worldview for your whole life.  I mean some things may remain constant (like core beliefs), but the world is always changing, therefore my view is always changing.  For instance I have a different view of the world now that I'm a business owner than I did before.  I have a different view of the world after having cancer.  It has dramatically changed my worldview.  It's how we grow.  It's how we learn.  I think maybe we glean what we need from a worldview, and once we've learned the lessons from that part of our life, we move into a new phase or new worldview and glean what we need again.  It's good to be questioning how we see things.  At any rate, your posts as of late (along with others) have really got me thinking about my worldview.  So thanks. :)

[Hunter]

I was just talking to a social-worker this week, that people that do things that we currently shame as politically incorrect, are things that often result in increased mental health. Staying small within one subculture was the norm. All this world emphasis is un-grounding.

 

I have hung at the edge of sub-culture after sub-culture where many people had stayed small within that sub-culture their whole lives. They might be all sorts of things that the more traveled and more read choose to shame, but they are healthy and grounded. They are tethered and secure.

 

That is not my destiny on this planet, though. I'm traveled and read, and hold citizenship in 3 countries, all of which deny me as being a "real" citizen. I have no clan, or set of stories to cling to. I have no rules of conduct to follow. Being a world citizen is not all it's cracked up to be. It's so big and vague and variable. For awhile I clung to the Declaration of Human Rights and clung to being "human", but I don't even feel the claim to that anymore. It's just a piece of paper that most people obviously don't believe. 

 

 

[stripe]

I was just talking to a social-worker this week, that people that do things that we currently shame as politically incorrect, are things that often result in increased mental health. Staying small within one subculture was the norm. All this world emphasis is un-grounding.

 

I have hung at the edge of sub-culture after sub-culture where many people had stayed small within that sub-culture their whole lives. They might be all sorts of things that the more traveled and more read choose to shame, but they are healthy and grounded. They are tethered and secure.

Yes, like when most people cooked and/or ate the same narrow range of foods, but people knew how to cook them. Unlike people with their modern, shiny kitchens who use it to microwave something. Too many options is overwhelming. 

[Hunter]

This is exactly what Moore describes!

 

I've gotten a bit lost. Who is Moore again?

[Hunter]

I'd like to post this quotation from Michael Clay Thompson's Classics in the Classroom. It has always resonated with me and I was reminded of it when someone upthread talked about 90/90/90 schools. (I don't know how much it has to do with the original post though.)

 

After this passage he goes on to talk about his experience teaching a "basic" class with excellent literature and Socratic discussions. Someone came into the class and thought it was the gifted class he was also teaching at the school. I don't have the wherewithal to rekey all of it so I'll just do this first part.

 

When hearing about success with basic classes, I try so hard to tease out what PARTS were the success, and if they are WORTH it for MY students. I find it difficult to do.

[Hunter]

Yes, like when most people cooked and/or ate the same narrow range of foods, but people knew how to cook them. Unlike people with their modern, shiny kitchens who use it to microwave something. Too many options is overwhelming. 

 

This is exactly what I mean.