I just don't get it!

Mr.Mouse

cambered car wheels.. seriously, huh?

Mr.Mouse

ok, sorry, missed the premise of the OP post. but still stand by my assertion that any car with those rims is farkin shart and the owner probably isn't a darwinist.

peat

Mr.Mouse wrote:

cambered car wheels.. seriously, huh?

Every car has negative camber to aid handling.

But I imagine you mean those chavvy cars that run the wheels at 45 deg? Yeah, stick 'em in a leaky boat.

briantrumpet

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

More generally

rjs wrote:

The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

*feel free to correct me.

Yep it was trendy not to teach English grammar. I think my son was 6 when I could not help him indicate verbs, nouns etc in a text.

I think all I had to do was to label nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and prepositions. That was it. Oddly, I seem to have ended up better at grammar than most of the children who have since had it rammed down their throats in great detail.

cowsham

Alfa Romeo cars are beautiful ?

robert88

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

More generally

rjs wrote:

The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

*feel free to correct me.

Yep it was trendy not to teach English grammar. I think my son was 6 when I could not help him indicate verbs, nouns etc in a text.

I think all I had to do was to label nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and prepositions. That was it. Oddly, I seem to have ended up better at grammar than most of the children who have since had it rammed down their throats in great detail.

I bet Google translate hasn't a clue about grammar. It just remembers a trillion things.

morstar

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

More generally

rjs wrote:

The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

*feel free to correct me.

Yep it was trendy not to teach English grammar. I think my son was 6 when I could not help him indicate verbs, nouns etc in a text.

I think all I had to do was to label nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and prepositions. That was it. Oddly, I seem to have ended up better at grammar than most of the children who have since had it rammed down their throats in great detail.

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

However, that is not me saying that new techniques don't work, just that the focus is wrong.

cowsham

morstar wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Subtraction by regrouping is supposed to bring place value (units, tens, hundreds) into the technique: it explicitly shows that the column to the left has ten times the value so you can use some of it.

In the end the question is whether you teach the simplest way to do something, but develop no understanding, or develop understanding but risk confusion.

More generally

rjs wrote:

The eldest's school had us all in for a 'workshop' on this a while back. They explained that the intention was to teach a variety of methods for long multiplication, long division, etc. as different children got on better with different methods. Each child could then use whichever method best suited them; it wasn't about a method being right or wrong.

Over quite a few years recently there has been a lot of guff about "learning styles", encouraging kids to "find" their own (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic - yes really), and then pandering to it.
This has been pretty much debunked by research and, thankfully, is dying the death: only advocated now by that sort of annoying FB sharer who bangs on about how much better education is in Scandinavia.

As for the kids, they mostly prefer to be told how to do it, then practise long past the point where I get bored.

Everything has fashions and trends. The teaching of grammar was almost non-existent when I was at school. I think I have picked up most of it from reading* but my 9 year old has a better grasp of the technical terminology. I suspect you are right about (most) kids preferring to be told *the* way to do it, but handy to have some alternatives for those that struggle.

*feel free to correct me.

Yep it was trendy not to teach English grammar. I think my son was 6 when I could not help him indicate verbs, nouns etc in a text.

I think all I had to do was to label nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and prepositions. That was it. Oddly, I seem to have ended up better at grammar than most of the children who have since had it rammed down their throats in great detail.

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

However, that is not me saying that new techniques don't work, just that the focus is wrong.

When I was first taught joined up writing I was told to put a tail before and after each letter but when you write a sentence of words with tails back and front of each word the writing looks scrawly -- for years in primary school I always had big red pen marks over the page from the teacher telling me my writing was scrawly which admittedly was true.

Then one day after complaining to a friend about this he showed me his writing which was much more legible than mine but to my mind wrong cos there were no tails at the beginning or end of words but he said " I don't have the red pen through my sentences " so I started to write incorrectly leaving out the tails at each end of the words -- much more legible and no red pen -- why couldn't the teacher tell me what I needed to know -- do it differently from the way we taught you and all will be OK.???

briantrumpet

morstar wrote:

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

Indeed. It's so much easier to assess someone's knowledge than their understanding. And sadly that then drives what passes for education. So much of it is back-to-front: the curriculum is driven by what's easiest to assess 'objectively', rather than how to give learners an insatiable appetite for learning, and the skills required to learn independently. Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

cowsham

Ant and Dec are funny or do they mean funny as in a bit touched?

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

morstar wrote:

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

Indeed. It's so much easier to assess someone's knowledge than their understanding. And sadly that then drives what passes for education. So much of it is back-to-front: the curriculum is driven by what's easiest to assess 'objectively', rather than how to give learners an insatiable appetite for learning, and the skills required to learn independently. Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

It's not limited to education, but it's a pretty understandable reaction to the other extreme of not measuring anything and wondering why poor performance has been allowed to pass as acceptable. There's nothing inherently wrong with measuring performance but there is a temptation to focus on what is easiest to measure, rather than what gives the best view of performance.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

morstar wrote:

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

Indeed. It's so much easier to assess someone's knowledge than their understanding. And sadly that then drives what passes for education. So much of it is back-to-front: the curriculum is driven by what's easiest to assess 'objectively', rather than how to give learners an insatiable appetite for learning, and the skills required to learn independently. Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

It's not limited to education, but it's a pretty understandable reaction to the other extreme of not measuring anything and wondering why poor performance has been allowed to pass as acceptable. There's nothing inherently wrong with measuring performance but there is a temptation to focus on what is easiest to measure, rather than what gives the best view of performance.

Indeed. We seem to swing from 'anything goes' to 'let's measure/test everything'. It would appear that the middle ground is elusive.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the actual outcomes in education, comparing functional abilities of our generation when virtually nothing was tested (other than in public exams) with the current generation, where they seem to be tested daily, suggest that regular testing leads to better intellectual or practical abilities.

morstar

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

morstar wrote:

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

Indeed. It's so much easier to assess someone's knowledge than their understanding. And sadly that then drives what passes for education. So much of it is back-to-front: the curriculum is driven by what's easiest to assess 'objectively', rather than how to give learners an insatiable appetite for learning, and the skills required to learn independently. Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

It's not limited to education, but it's a pretty understandable reaction to the other extreme of not measuring anything and wondering why poor performance has been allowed to pass as acceptable. There's nothing inherently wrong with measuring performance but there is a temptation to focus on what is easiest to measure, rather than what gives the best view of performance.

Indeed. We seem to swing from 'anything goes' to 'let's measure/test everything'. It would appear that the middle ground is elusive.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the actual outcomes in education, comparing functional abilities of our generation when virtually nothing was tested (other than in public exams) with the current generation, where they seem to be tested daily, suggest that regular testing leads to better intellectual or practical abilities.

I agree completely with the need and benefits of measures where they are appropriate. Problem is, quantifiable measures don't work for everything and poorly constructed targets often do more harm than good.

Back in my retail days I spent many many hours pondering how to encourage and reward the right behaviours rather than a simple sales performance bonus. The latter leading to parasitic sales behaviour which is only good for short term sales figures.

cowsham

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

rjsterry

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

morstar wrote:

Modern education for you. Has to be measurable.

Indeed. It's so much easier to assess someone's knowledge than their understanding. And sadly that then drives what passes for education. So much of it is back-to-front: the curriculum is driven by what's easiest to assess 'objectively', rather than how to give learners an insatiable appetite for learning, and the skills required to learn independently. Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

It's not limited to education, but it's a pretty understandable reaction to the other extreme of not measuring anything and wondering why poor performance has been allowed to pass as acceptable. There's nothing inherently wrong with measuring performance but there is a temptation to focus on what is easiest to measure, rather than what gives the best view of performance.

Indeed. We seem to swing from 'anything goes' to 'let's measure/test everything'. It would appear that the middle ground is elusive.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the actual outcomes in education, comparing functional abilities of our generation when virtually nothing was tested (other than in public exams) with the current generation, where they seem to be tested daily, suggest that regular testing leads to better intellectual or practical abilities.

Bomp may correct me, but I think the tests are as much an assessment of the teachers as the children.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

mrfpb

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Spellin. Punctooashun 'n Grammer

orraloon

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

briantrumpet

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

That's my biggest beef with it: the arcane terminology using the types of words no 11-year-old will have a natural handle on. As much as I like to encourage all ages of learners to understand where the logic in grammar is, using fancy terminology as one of the main goal is bonkers. I was sent lat year's test, and along with fairly OK questions, there were all sorts of stupid ones, and one or two contentious ones. It makes me cross, as language is truly a wonder of human invention, and should be a thing of awe to young minds (well, old ones too), but is here reduced to pointless learning by rote, with no attempt to scratch below the surface as to how it all works.

cowsham

briantrumpet wrote:

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

That's my biggest beef with it: the arcane terminology using the types of words no 11-year-old will have a natural handle on. As much as I like to encourage all ages of learners to understand where the logic in grammar is, using fancy terminology as one of the main goal is bonkers. I was sent lat year's test, and along with fairly OK questions, there were all sorts of stupid ones, and one or two contentious ones. It makes me cross, as language is truly a wonder of human invention, and should be a thing of awe to young minds (well, old ones too), but is here reduced to pointless learning by rote, with no attempt to scratch below the surface as to how it all works.

A little deviation from this conversation but on similar lines
The firm I work for are looking for engineers but are finding it difficult to find suitable candidates and when they do find suitable people sometimes the job offer is refused -- I think I know why.
I happened to get a read at some of the questions and expected answers being asked at the interviews. A lot of the questions don't make sense and some expected answers are simply wrong!
It seems to me that if you were a polite person you wouldn't argue with the interviewer about the questions and the wrong outcome will occur. Conversely if you argue with the interviewer you'll not be successful. It's a lose lose situation for both parties.
I highlighted this to the powers that be and I think things are improving but if I were a candidate being interviewed with these questions I'd lose confidence in the company (conclude they're a pack of plonkers ) and probably refuse the job offer too.

Ben6899

I'd be intrigued to see an example of the questions (and answers)... being an Engineer.

cowsham

Ben6899 wrote:

I'd be intrigued to see an example of the questions (and answers)... being an Engineer.

It was some while ago since I saw them but one of the questions was " what is a capacitor ?" --- An acceptable answer " A smoothing capacitor "
That's like asking - "what is a car?" Then expecting the answer to be " A sports car"

The answer to the question should be only one thing " An energy storing device"

If you were asked to give one application or use of a capacitor you could say it can form part of a power supply smoothing circuit, or part of a frequency generation, Decoupling or coupling circuit etc etc

rick_chasey

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

briantrumpet

Rick Chasey wrote:

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

There's a difference between being able to answer the questions, and understanding why. My guess would be if you asked even the top 5% by mark of the 11-year-olds taking these tests about the logic behind the right answers, they'd not have a clue: they've just been coached to pass the tests. It's all surface-learning of the type that Richard Feynman rightly railed against: knowledge with no understanding, and therefore quite unable to extrapolate anything useful. It's a tragedy to do this to young enquiring minds, about such an amazingly fascinating subject.

awavey

Rick Chasey wrote:

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

but I dont remember being taught English like that, and Id like to think I picked up most of the same grammar rules, I know I picked up the more rigid rules from learning foreign languages oddly. But those questions it almost feels like the difference between applied maths and pure maths with a language instead, like they are teaching just the pure English grammar rules, rather than applied to a natural language context, that must be very difficult to grasp at that age, and surely limits expanding outside of the pure application they are taught.

or they are just badly written questions

briantrumpet

awavey wrote:

But those questions it almost feels like the difference between applied maths and pure maths with a language instead, like they are teaching just the pure English grammar rules, rather than applied to a natural language context, that must be very difficult to grasp at that age, and surely limits expanding outside of the pure application they are taught.

or they are just badly written questions

All of the above.

Jez mon

Cowsham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I'd be intrigued to see an example of the questions (and answers)... being an Engineer.

It was some while ago since I saw them but one of the questions was " what is a capacitor ?" --- An acceptable answer " A smoothing capacitor "
That's like asking - "what is a car?" Then expecting the answer to be " A sports car"

The answer to the question should be only one thing " An energy storing device"

If you were asked to give one application or use of a capacitor you could say it can form part of a power supply smoothing circuit, or part of a frequency generation, Decoupling or coupling circuit etc etc

Well being a mechanical engineer, I'd have clearly fluffed it anyway.

Sounds like you've got non technical people doing technical interviews, surely that's clearly never gonna work!

verylonglegs

Jez mon wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I'd be intrigued to see an example of the questions (and answers)... being an Engineer.

It was some while ago since I saw them but one of the questions was " what is a capacitor ?" --- An acceptable answer " A smoothing capacitor "
That's like asking - "what is a car?" Then expecting the answer to be " A sports car"

The answer to the question should be only one thing " An energy storing device"

If you were asked to give one application or use of a capacitor you could say it can form part of a power supply smoothing circuit, or part of a frequency generation, Decoupling or coupling circuit etc etc

Well being a mechanical engineer, I'd have clearly fluffed it anyway.

Sounds like you've got non technical people doing technical interviews, surely that's clearly never gonna work!

Forget the answer, how is such a basic question finding its way into screening for an engineer level post? That's ridiculous.

Jez mon

verylonglegs wrote:

Forget the answer, how is such a basic question finding its way into screening for an engineer level post? That's ridiculous.

I'd imagine it would be fine as a conversation starter, so long as there was a good follow up exam question.