[senco-forum] Re: How many rules?

Would anyone even entertain the idea of teaching numeracy without teaching

The same argument applies. Some children can be given the basics and work 
out the rest for themselves. Others need more support to find their own 
route.

With Numeracy, like literacy, we aren't here to say this is the way it 
should be. We are here to help the children to become independent 
mathematicians who can solve the problems on their own and in their own way. 
Yes, we do show them the best methods. Yes, there are times when there is 
only one way, but it is all about understanding and application, and that is 
not taught, it is learned.

Tim Rupp
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Kelly" <mary.kelly4 at ntlworld.com>
To: "'Maggie Downie'" <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>; "'Biff Crabbe'" 
<ba at biffc.vispa.com>; "'Philip MacMillan'" <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>; 
"'Amanda'" <amandavh at btinternet.com>; "'Phil'" <pmacken1 at bigpond.net.au>; 
<senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Re: How many rules?

> Would anyone even entertain the idea of teaching numeracy without teaching
> what the numbers represent? So why do we continue to debate whether or not
> we should teach what the letters and letter groups represent?
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Maggie Downie
> Sent: 04 September 2007 22:41
> To: Biff Crabbe; Philip MacMillan; Amanda; Phil;
> senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Re: How many rules?
>
>
>
> Biff Crabbe <ba at biffc.vispa.com> wrote: Not a piece of research published 
> in
> a learned journal, but personally I'd
> recommend Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' as an excellent and eminently
> readable book about the English language.  Populist rubbish in some 
> circles
> I'm sure.
>
> It's apparently encouraging that the number of 'rules' in English is 
> finite,
> albeit with more exceptions to rules than is comfortable.  But if you're
> having to learn how to read and spell via those rules, you're probably not
> showing promise of being a 'natural'.
>
> I'm not quite following your reasoning here, Biff.  How can one learn to
> read and write *without* being taught how reading and writing 'work' (i.e,
> the 'rules', if you insist on being rule bound)?  Reading is not a 
> 'natural'
> process, therefore no-one can be 'a natural' at it...
>
> Surely, those who are slower to learn have a far better chance of learning
> 180ish 'correspondences', and how to apply them to decode & blend words,
> than they do of learning 250,000 words as discrete entities?
>
>
> Those people lucky enough to just
> learn to read and spell fluently without particular difficulty very often
> can't articulate the rules, or even recognise that there is a rule 
> governing
> something that they know how to do (as Jean has attested).
>
> So while we might be comforted by the finite number of rules to be 
> learned,
> we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that those who need to learn in this 
> way
> are already at a comparative disadvantage.  And it's certainly not the 
> most
> efficient way to grasp literacy.
>
> So, what is the most efficient way to 'grasp literacy'?
>
> Maggie
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
>
> 