Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0TFm1n13887; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:48:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:48:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <005a01c1a8dc$2e8f4fa0$6601a8c0@santab1.ca.home.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "CP" <cindypatten@home.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2014] Re: Following up on the five Why's X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2278 Lines: 42 I'm reading this ongoing discussion re:calculators in the GED and real life application, and I'm wondering if anyone else out there considers the incredibly poor learning curve not only these students, but everyone else, who grew up dependent on a machine to do their calculations, would have, if calculators were no longer produced or ceased to function. I teach all my students basic, life applicable math. Some do take longer to pass the GED Math section, but they all can do it with pencil and paper, without the use of calculators, and they feel exceptionally more qualified than those they see around them, dependent upon a machine. They understand the application and can abstract with the process, rather than just knowing which buttons to press to get a correct answer. I'm not anti-calculator; I'm pro-real life, applicable learning to become self-reliant while increasing self-esteem and self-knowledge while completing life tasks. A calculator just doesn't 'do it' for me. Love this discussion, though - for the most part... you guys are great! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne R Connors" <arconn@juno.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:35 AM Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2011] Re: Following up on the five Why's > I think Emily's suggestions for GED class are great, but I question if > one has a 50 hour class , can one really go into the EFF ideas? I think > we can teach it from our perspective..ie. ask how that will help them in > life or show that particular use in life (ie. fractions in cooking, area > in painting a room ) On the other hand, when some of the class will take > their GED after only 20 hours of class and it is open entry,how in the > world does one find time to fit discussion of the WHEEL into the class? > And should one fit it into the class? > And I agree with Andre that there are many things required for GED that > are trivial. When does one use scientific calculators or the area of a > triangle in "real" life? 99% of GED students don't see the connection > and frankly neither do I. My classes want to get their GED yesterday and > in a 2 hour class, they want to learn what is on the test..... Period. > That is their goal, so I go with it! >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:45:25 EST