2007-09-11 19:33:00
How is it possible for one book to be both highly educational and (IMNSHO) absolutely craptacular at the same time? Case in point: Lesgeven en zelfstandig leren by Geerlings and Van Der Veen.
This course book covers basic didactics of teaching at the high school level. It covers all kinds of interesting subjects and I feel that there's a lot for me to learn.
Unfortunately the book's laced with three things that irk me.
1. To me it seems that the authors often skim over stuff that could be very interesting. Instead of taking an analytical, or academic approach, they fill chapters with examples and stories. There's nothing wrong with examples, but neither is there with pure psychology.
2. The book feels outdated and like it was written by cuddly-fluffy psychologists. The kind who want to pamper kids and feel that they should be let free to explore their youth and possibilities. *cue Care Bear song* Seriously, I'm all for letting kids discover what they can and can't do, but I believe that in the end kids also need structure and hierarchy. Besides, the original print was written in the eighties D:
3. Their writing is atrocious at times. At the beginning of chapter five there's a sentence that runs for a full -ten- lines! It runs a hundred and thirty words in length! What the fsck were they thinking?
And then there's pure genius like this:
In reality, assessing the beginning situation [of a student] is done based on 'experience'. This is a conglomerate of pedagogic-didactical knowledge and intuition.
/me shakes head
/me goes back to studying
kilala.nl tags: school, annoying, reading,
View or add comments (curr. 7)
Posted by Thomas
Really? Aww crap :D
Maybe I should start looking into some foreign books, in english. Because if they're all like this? Meh...
Ah well, we'll see.
Posted by Thomas
Oh wow, one thing that shows the book's age is page 144, exercise 13. It tells the reader about the prevalent groups and styles among teenagers. Well, the groups and styles are exactly what was "modern" when -I- was still in high school! :D
According to the book, there are the following "factions".
* "Kakkers" / "The posh". Kids with rich parents or families. Tend to look down upon the "poor" kids. Dress expensively on daddy's buck. Kind of like junior frat kids.
* "Disco's". Mostly kids from the lower social climate. They dress expensively and follow fashion, but have a job to pay for their own gear. They dress hipper than the "kakkers" and feel that they have more life experience than them.
* "Apartelingen" / "Odd balls". A small group that consists of a multitude of smaller groups. Punks, rockers, housers, socioss and altos. Dress in extreme ways and are usually very creative. They also hold rather unique opinions.
* "Gewonen" / "Mundanes". Just normal kinds who haven't joined one of the other factions. Are sometimes labeled as dull, but don't perceive themselves that way. They don't stand out in a crowd and put little importance on clothing.
When I started out in high school I think we were all "mundanes". Just ordinary young kids, going to high school for the first time. The divide came during our third year, when people started to form their identity.
I became part of the "alto" (alternative) group. I wore curb stompers and a long army coat. I let my hair grow out. I listened to heavy metal and was into the outdoors. I hated going to bars with all the kids tanking up on beer.
Funny how things turn out. I still have oddball hobbies and tendencies, but I'm much less extreme than I was. You could even call me "square" at times.
Posted by Kanako
I think these days children grow into groups rather earlier, I spend some time teaching a "groep 8" in a low-income neighborhood and well, there were "gothics", "posh", "nerds" (these are kind of a new brand) etc. (and ofcourse 90% had cellphones where as their parents mostly did not have money to pay for television...) and about teaching books: yeah, they are mostly that, although the elementary school has a new set of them based of the '90 (I mean: I got an explanation on "gabbers" with me being one in my youth XD)
Posted by Thomas
> I think these days children grow into groups
> rather earlier,
Is it me, or are kids these days growing up too quickly anyway? Some of the stuff I've heard about primary school just freaks me out. Apparently there's this project called "De jonge ondernemer" ("The young entrepreneur") that wants kids in the age 6-9 to take a shot at project oriented education. They want kids to do their own research and to keep binders and folders of task descriptions and such. Sweet Jeebus! That's too much for most fourteen year olds, let alone pre-teens!
> I spend some time teaching a "groep 8" in a low-income
> neighborhood and well, there were "gothics", "posh",
> "nerds"
What the? Yeah, what I told you... We are forcing our kids to grow up way too quickly. When we have kids I want to impress upon them the importance of being a kid. Take things easy, don't stress too much and leave a lot of grown-up stuff to the grown-ups. There's no need to rush to become an adult. A lot of us adults think it sucks being one!
> and about teaching books: yeah, they are mostly that,
> although the elementary school has a new set of them
> based of the '90
Heheh, mine are based on the nineties as well. How old do yo think I am?! :D
"Gabbers" were part of the "Oddballs" group as well, filed under "Housers".
Posted by Kirsten (website)
okay, I have to admit, I have one book about cooperative learning that's interesting. It describes ways to introduce children to cooperative learning in a realy nice way. I even think some students would benevit from doing those exercices :)
All content, with exception of "borrowed" blogpost images, or unless otherwise indicated, is copyright of Tess Sluijter. The character Kilala the cat-demon is copyright of Rumiko Takahashi and used here without permission.
2007-09-12 00:01:00
Posted by Kirsten (website)
haha get ready :P all the books about "lesgeven enzo" zijn het zelfde