A friend of mine recently pointed out that if Iran were to successfully attack an American warship in any meaningful way, their joy would be short-lived: "I think Iran would regret their victory. The 19th century Royal Navy, for all its immense power had nothing like a B-52 or, heaven forbid, the U.S.S. Tennessee." I think he's correct, and that's part of my point, since England in 1812 felt similarly confident about any naval clash they had with the U.S. So my point is this: England in late 1812 was shocked by the American successes, as shocked as America would now be if its navy repeatedly lost to the Iranians.
(original post: The War of 1812)
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The War of 1812
I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation to think about: what if an Iranian frigate (a type of warship) took - destroyed - a U.S. frigate?
Now, I'm aware of the attack on the U.S. Cole several years ago - and this is not what I'm driving at. Some crewmen died in that attack, but the Cole survived, was repaired, and returned to service in the U.S. Navy. As shocking as the attack was, the Cole wasn't destroyed, and she wasn't taken. But what if an Iranian frigate took a U.S. one?
In 1812, the United States of America declared war on England. The reasons for this are long and complex (as is so often the case on war) and are beyond the point of this post), but the outcome of the war arguably marked the entrance of the U.S. onto the world stage.
Before the war, the U.S. was merely a loose group of former colonies - a third-rate nation at best. They possessed little in the way of a navy, with 19 vessels, of which 16 were actually in service. Seven of these were frigates, with the remainder being smaller vessels such as brigs and sloops. England's navy (the Royal Navy) possessed over 600 in-service vessels, of which about 175 were ships of the line - a class of ships that would eventually come be known as battleships, and which were larger and heavier than the frigates that formed the largest ships in the American navy. So on paper, there was no contest: the American navy would be lucky to capture a few British Merchantmen before being captured itself, or at best bottled up by Royal Navy blockade.(1)
The course of history also seemed to be against the Americans. For the past 20 years, the Royal Navy had routinely routed every enemy it had faced. Nelson's victory at Trafalgar(2) had been notable only for the scale of the victory; the Royal Navy simply won and won, even when out manned and outgunned. It was a foregone conclusion that the war at sea would be swiftly over, with England victorious.
It was with supreme confidence, therefore, that Captain Dacres of the HMS Guerriere met the US Constitution (Captain Hull) on August 19th, 1812. He addressed his men, saying that he exepcted them to beat the Constitution in 30 minutes, and that he would be "offended with them if they did not do their business in that time." Dacres was not too far off in the length of the battle (Constitution ceased firing less than 25 minutes after she opened fire at 6:05pm) but he was wrong in his prediction of its outcome: Constitution destroyed the Guerriere, so badly shattering her that she was worthless as a prize and had to be burned so as not to be a menace to navigation. Besides their frigate, the British lost 23 killed, plus another 56 wounded. American casualties were seven killed, and seven wounded.
Let me pause here to see if I can put this in modern terms. England no longer rules the waves - if anyone does, I suppose it is America. So, what would we think if, say, an Iranian frigate engaged a U.S. frigate - and destroyed her in less than half an hour?
Of course, this only begins to approach the reality of what happened in the War of 1812, because the U.S. Navy hasn't spent twenty years defeating every other armed nation on earth. If the U.S. Navy were to tomorrow take on, say, the combined English and German navies, I don't know who would win. And, of course, not only did the Constitution take the Guerriere on August 19th, but a little over one month later the US United States took the HMS Macedonian. And then on December 29th, Constitution met and took the HMS Java. The United States, an infant nation with an insignificant navy, met and smashed the forces of the most powerful international force in the world. The world took notice.
(follow-up post: The War of 1812 revisited)
(1) This disparity is lessened by the fact that England was then also embroiled in the Napoleanic wars, which placed great demands on her navy, but the fact remains that the Royal Navy was much more powerful than the U.S. Navy, with larger, heavier ships and greater reserves of men and materiel.
(2) Nelson, with 27 ships of the line, trounced a combined Franco-Spanish fleet of 33 ships of the line, sinking one and capturing 17 while losing none of his own,
Sources:
* Battle of Trafalgar: Grant, R. G. Battle at Sea: 3,000 Years of Naval Warfare. DK Publishing, New York. 2008 @ pp 188-189.
* War of 1812:
- relative strength of the Royal and American Navies: Toll, Ian W. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy. Norton, New York. 2006. @ pp 331-333.
- Constitution:Guerriere engagement: Toll (ibid) @ pp 347-354.
- Constitution:Java engagement: Toll (ibid) @ pp 375-380.
- United States:Macedonian engagement: Toll (ibid) @ pp 360-365.
NOTE: this post has been cross-posted at http://badgersclassroom.blogspot.com/2009/09/war-of-1812-and-us-navy.html
Now, I'm aware of the attack on the U.S. Cole several years ago - and this is not what I'm driving at. Some crewmen died in that attack, but the Cole survived, was repaired, and returned to service in the U.S. Navy. As shocking as the attack was, the Cole wasn't destroyed, and she wasn't taken. But what if an Iranian frigate took a U.S. one?
In 1812, the United States of America declared war on England. The reasons for this are long and complex (as is so often the case on war) and are beyond the point of this post), but the outcome of the war arguably marked the entrance of the U.S. onto the world stage.
Before the war, the U.S. was merely a loose group of former colonies - a third-rate nation at best. They possessed little in the way of a navy, with 19 vessels, of which 16 were actually in service. Seven of these were frigates, with the remainder being smaller vessels such as brigs and sloops. England's navy (the Royal Navy) possessed over 600 in-service vessels, of which about 175 were ships of the line - a class of ships that would eventually come be known as battleships, and which were larger and heavier than the frigates that formed the largest ships in the American navy. So on paper, there was no contest: the American navy would be lucky to capture a few British Merchantmen before being captured itself, or at best bottled up by Royal Navy blockade.(1)
The course of history also seemed to be against the Americans. For the past 20 years, the Royal Navy had routinely routed every enemy it had faced. Nelson's victory at Trafalgar(2) had been notable only for the scale of the victory; the Royal Navy simply won and won, even when out manned and outgunned. It was a foregone conclusion that the war at sea would be swiftly over, with England victorious.
It was with supreme confidence, therefore, that Captain Dacres of the HMS Guerriere met the US Constitution (Captain Hull) on August 19th, 1812. He addressed his men, saying that he exepcted them to beat the Constitution in 30 minutes, and that he would be "offended with them if they did not do their business in that time." Dacres was not too far off in the length of the battle (Constitution ceased firing less than 25 minutes after she opened fire at 6:05pm) but he was wrong in his prediction of its outcome: Constitution destroyed the Guerriere, so badly shattering her that she was worthless as a prize and had to be burned so as not to be a menace to navigation. Besides their frigate, the British lost 23 killed, plus another 56 wounded. American casualties were seven killed, and seven wounded.
Let me pause here to see if I can put this in modern terms. England no longer rules the waves - if anyone does, I suppose it is America. So, what would we think if, say, an Iranian frigate engaged a U.S. frigate - and destroyed her in less than half an hour?
Of course, this only begins to approach the reality of what happened in the War of 1812, because the U.S. Navy hasn't spent twenty years defeating every other armed nation on earth. If the U.S. Navy were to tomorrow take on, say, the combined English and German navies, I don't know who would win. And, of course, not only did the Constitution take the Guerriere on August 19th, but a little over one month later the US United States took the HMS Macedonian. And then on December 29th, Constitution met and took the HMS Java. The United States, an infant nation with an insignificant navy, met and smashed the forces of the most powerful international force in the world. The world took notice.
(follow-up post: The War of 1812 revisited)
(1) This disparity is lessened by the fact that England was then also embroiled in the Napoleanic wars, which placed great demands on her navy, but the fact remains that the Royal Navy was much more powerful than the U.S. Navy, with larger, heavier ships and greater reserves of men and materiel.
(2) Nelson, with 27 ships of the line, trounced a combined Franco-Spanish fleet of 33 ships of the line, sinking one and capturing 17 while losing none of his own,
Sources:
* Battle of Trafalgar: Grant, R. G. Battle at Sea: 3,000 Years of Naval Warfare. DK Publishing, New York. 2008 @ pp 188-189.
* War of 1812:
- relative strength of the Royal and American Navies: Toll, Ian W. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy. Norton, New York. 2006. @ pp 331-333.
- Constitution:Guerriere engagement: Toll (ibid) @ pp 347-354.
- Constitution:Java engagement: Toll (ibid) @ pp 375-380.
- United States:Macedonian engagement: Toll (ibid) @ pp 360-365.
NOTE: this post has been cross-posted at http://badgersclassroom.blogspot.com/2009/09/war-of-1812-and-us-navy.html
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Wake Forest drops the SAT
The New York Times reports that Wake Forest and Smith College no longer requires prospective students to take the SAT. They are not alone.
This is not a new debate, of course, but nevertheless I'm going to toss in my 2 cents. Whatever else the SAT and ACT may be, money plays a large part of the game. Applicants have to pay to take the exams, and pay to have the scores forwarded to the schools. Test Prep Company and its competitors make a lot of money on the test as well. So wherever the SAT may be headed, it's not going to vanish without a fight. (Not convinced? Consider also the 2005 revision of the exam, which were arguably due to the University of California's decision to stop using the SAT in its application process unless the exam underwent a major overhaul. UC attracts a lot of applicants, which means a lot of test takers and a lot of money.)
My position? I'm currently making money off of the system, but I hope not to have to do so for very long, and I wouldn't mind seeing this exam cast aside. Since it is a money game, since affluent parents can afford test prep programs and aids, I'm not sure how students' exam results can fail to reflect their SES. And really, is SES the criteria by which we should be basing entrance to higher education?
This is not a new debate, of course, but nevertheless I'm going to toss in my 2 cents. Whatever else the SAT and ACT may be, money plays a large part of the game. Applicants have to pay to take the exams, and pay to have the scores forwarded to the schools. Test Prep Company and its competitors make a lot of money on the test as well. So wherever the SAT may be headed, it's not going to vanish without a fight. (Not convinced? Consider also the 2005 revision of the exam, which were arguably due to the University of California's decision to stop using the SAT in its application process unless the exam underwent a major overhaul. UC attracts a lot of applicants, which means a lot of test takers and a lot of money.)
My position? I'm currently making money off of the system, but I hope not to have to do so for very long, and I wouldn't mind seeing this exam cast aside. Since it is a money game, since affluent parents can afford test prep programs and aids, I'm not sure how students' exam results can fail to reflect their SES. And really, is SES the criteria by which we should be basing entrance to higher education?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
WALL-E
I saw WALL-E last weekend (the weekend before the 4th, that is). This movie has had a long period of advance advertising, with cardboard WALL-E models in theater lobbies and such, and when I first saw those models, I thought that this was a sort of cartoony Short Circuit, and I wasn't really interested. Even when I learned that it was from Pixar, I wasn't intrigued, which indicates a shortcoming on my part, since Pixar generally puts out a good, thought-provoking product. But I caught a review in the paper (The New York Times, I think) and leared that the movie, though animated, digs into some very real issues: what is the likely outcome if we human beings continue in our present path of consumerism and laziness. The outcome is potentially bleak, and all the more so as we don't really seem to notice what it is that we're losing. Just now, for instance, in one of my rare free moments, I'm sitting here at the computer blogging instead of playing with my ca
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Fifty percent of people use algebra at least a few times a week
According to this survey, fifty percent of people out there use algebra at least a few times a week. So all of that algebra I'm teaching these kids in class does have use in the real world.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Ben Stein: appropriately Expelled
Scientific American recently reviewed Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The review, and even more so, the comments that follow it, are enlightening. In fairness, though, before I go further, I should note that I have not seen the movie, nor have I read any of Darwin's work. Nevertheless, I think that some comments can be made based on what I see in the review and its replies.
I'll start by defining science and religion as I understand them, as those terms, and their meaning, seem to play a large part in this debate. Both purport to explain the workings of the world around us, and so on that level, they are comparable. The difference, as I see it, is that while religion tells us "this is how things work," science is less absolute, saying only "this is our best understanding of how things work - new information may result in new theories". In other words, science encourages debate into the validity of its theories, with the understanding that debate and challenge will bring it closer to understanding the truth, while religion tells us what truth is, and has no mechanism for evaluating or updating its views. Admittedly, the degree to which science is open to challenge and revision varies - anyone looking to challenge the theory of gravity, for instance, will be hard-pressed to find support - but the theoretical basis of science is the scientific method, which includes challenge and revision as main tenets.
But, on to Ben Stein and Expelled. Stein proposes that educators and scientists who dare mention intelligent design are being shut out of the discussion on the origins of mankind. As part of this argument he compares proponents of evolution to Nazis, and apparently claims that Charles Darwin's theories led to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The difficulty with this argument would be that it confuses inspiration with responsibility. Hitler may have used the theory of evolution as a basis for his own theories, and it may have in fact inspired some of his thinking, but we can't thereofor suggest that people who believe in evolution are akin to Nazis, or that without the theory of evolution, Hitler's Nazism would never have emerged.
Personally, I don't think that Stein truly believes that Charles Darwin is responsible for the crimes of Germany before and during World War II; he's too smart for that. But I do think that he believes that there are people who will believe in that connection, and I agree with him on that, particularly if someone like Ben Stein voices it. In other words, I think Stein is using the Nazis as propaganda in an attempt to connect a phenomenon scorned by much of the country with the theories of evolution. If he can convince people to connect evolution with Nazism, then he can make evolution a very scary thing. This is something like the negative campaigning so often seen in political races, where candidates have little to say about their own qualifications, but a lot to say about their rivals' shortcomings.
I am also reminded of the alar scare during the late 1980s. Lab studies found that alar, a chemical sprayed on apples, caused cancer in lab animals, and eventually public distrust of the chemical caused it to be removed from the market. Whether alar was harmful or not is not my point here (even water is harmful enough in high enough doses), though; my point is that it was a chemical sprayed on apples. What could be a more basic and friendly food than an apple? What could be more healthful? What other food could so easily create a public outcry if it were tampered with and made unsafe? Chemicals more dangerous than alar no doubt were being used in the food industry at the time, but none was as easy a target as alar because alar was sprayed on apples - on the apples that we - and especially our children - eat. By connecting the theory of evolution with Nazism, Stein can elicit a much more vociferous response, in many more people, than if he merely said that the theory was counter to his own beliefs, or was faulty for any number of more plausible, more honest, but less dramatic, reasons.
I'll start by defining science and religion as I understand them, as those terms, and their meaning, seem to play a large part in this debate. Both purport to explain the workings of the world around us, and so on that level, they are comparable. The difference, as I see it, is that while religion tells us "this is how things work," science is less absolute, saying only "this is our best understanding of how things work - new information may result in new theories". In other words, science encourages debate into the validity of its theories, with the understanding that debate and challenge will bring it closer to understanding the truth, while religion tells us what truth is, and has no mechanism for evaluating or updating its views. Admittedly, the degree to which science is open to challenge and revision varies - anyone looking to challenge the theory of gravity, for instance, will be hard-pressed to find support - but the theoretical basis of science is the scientific method, which includes challenge and revision as main tenets.
But, on to Ben Stein and Expelled. Stein proposes that educators and scientists who dare mention intelligent design are being shut out of the discussion on the origins of mankind. As part of this argument he compares proponents of evolution to Nazis, and apparently claims that Charles Darwin's theories led to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The difficulty with this argument would be that it confuses inspiration with responsibility. Hitler may have used the theory of evolution as a basis for his own theories, and it may have in fact inspired some of his thinking, but we can't thereofor suggest that people who believe in evolution are akin to Nazis, or that without the theory of evolution, Hitler's Nazism would never have emerged.
Personally, I don't think that Stein truly believes that Charles Darwin is responsible for the crimes of Germany before and during World War II; he's too smart for that. But I do think that he believes that there are people who will believe in that connection, and I agree with him on that, particularly if someone like Ben Stein voices it. In other words, I think Stein is using the Nazis as propaganda in an attempt to connect a phenomenon scorned by much of the country with the theories of evolution. If he can convince people to connect evolution with Nazism, then he can make evolution a very scary thing. This is something like the negative campaigning so often seen in political races, where candidates have little to say about their own qualifications, but a lot to say about their rivals' shortcomings.
I am also reminded of the alar scare during the late 1980s. Lab studies found that alar, a chemical sprayed on apples, caused cancer in lab animals, and eventually public distrust of the chemical caused it to be removed from the market. Whether alar was harmful or not is not my point here (even water is harmful enough in high enough doses), though; my point is that it was a chemical sprayed on apples. What could be a more basic and friendly food than an apple? What could be more healthful? What other food could so easily create a public outcry if it were tampered with and made unsafe? Chemicals more dangerous than alar no doubt were being used in the food industry at the time, but none was as easy a target as alar because alar was sprayed on apples - on the apples that we - and especially our children - eat. By connecting the theory of evolution with Nazism, Stein can elicit a much more vociferous response, in many more people, than if he merely said that the theory was counter to his own beliefs, or was faulty for any number of more plausible, more honest, but less dramatic, reasons.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Student MIA
One of my SAT students has vanished.
On its surface, that's not terribly surprising. SAT students forget to come to class, sometimes intentionally, I suspect, from time to time. MCAT students do the same. But typically, I can predict which students are likely to forget. The surprize absences are typically explained with an email either before the event or after it. This student is one of the most dedicated SAT students that I have, who was apologetic when she had to miss class earlier due he participation in mock-trial, so her unexplained absence is unexpected.
Normally, in these situations, I email the student to find out what's up, voice my support, etc, but I don't have an email address for her.
Very frustrating.
On its surface, that's not terribly surprising. SAT students forget to come to class, sometimes intentionally, I suspect, from time to time. MCAT students do the same. But typically, I can predict which students are likely to forget. The surprize absences are typically explained with an email either before the event or after it. This student is one of the most dedicated SAT students that I have, who was apologetic when she had to miss class earlier due he participation in mock-trial, so her unexplained absence is unexpected.
Normally, in these situations, I email the student to find out what's up, voice my support, etc, but I don't have an email address for her.
Very frustrating.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The 'Aha!' moment
Like any job, teaching has its down sides. This is perhaps particularly true of teaching SAT prep, as the kids are present because they've been forced to go, typically, and you're teaching them either after they've already put in a full day of school, or you're interrupting their holy weekend. For the most part, they really don't want to be there, and I don't blame them.
But there's the rewarding side, too. Yesterday I had one of my SAT classes and we came to the math subject of functions. For those who don't remember, functions are those questions that look like "if f(x) = 2x + 3, then what does f(9) equal?"
I've never been clear on why some students have great difficulty with these problems, as they're really nothing but simple replacement exercises, but the fact is that some of them do, and when the word functions came out of my mouth, one of my students immediately said, aloud, though more-or-less to herself, "oh, I suck at these."
I didn't acknowledge her comment, but launched into my explanation of functions as the fancy substitution exercises that they are. Maybe three minutes in she spoke up again, again to herself, "oh," as in "oh, I get it."
That's what makes teaching worth it - that 'aha' moment, particularly when it's a subject the student has tried to learn before, but been unsuccessful at.
But there's the rewarding side, too. Yesterday I had one of my SAT classes and we came to the math subject of functions. For those who don't remember, functions are those questions that look like "if f(x) = 2x + 3, then what does f(9) equal?"
I've never been clear on why some students have great difficulty with these problems, as they're really nothing but simple replacement exercises, but the fact is that some of them do, and when the word functions came out of my mouth, one of my students immediately said, aloud, though more-or-less to herself, "oh, I suck at these."
I didn't acknowledge her comment, but launched into my explanation of functions as the fancy substitution exercises that they are. Maybe three minutes in she spoke up again, again to herself, "oh," as in "oh, I get it."
That's what makes teaching worth it - that 'aha' moment, particularly when it's a subject the student has tried to learn before, but been unsuccessful at.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Online editor
As writing moves away from traditional publishers run by professionals with on-staff editors to at-home and on-line printing with no editor save the writer and his computer, editing has fallen by the wayside. In some cases, this doesn't really matter. Whether an email contains a few misspelled words or not doesn't really matter - we understand the trade-off between efficiency and accuracy. However, in some cases we want someone else to look over our work before we submit it, and we'd like that someone to be more than the squiggly red and green lines we might find beneath our misspelled words and gramatically incorrect phrases. This need becomes even more urgent as our own editing skills atrophy through lack of use.
Someone has capitalized on this need. Gramlee (TM) employs a staff of independent editors who promise to turn around smaller documents (less than 4000 words) by email in under 24 hours (longer documents may take longer). How good they are I don't know, but the notion of an online service of this sort appeals to me, for although I have a fair understanding of grammar and spelling, I am not perfect, nor am I a very accurate typist. This sort of service may be of use to me for my more important writing (e.g. my thesis), though I think that I'd want a single editor, rather than a pool of editors, to work with for my novel, assuming that I ever get said novel to a point where an editor would be called for.
I can also see the use of such a service for others who lack the time or skills (or inclination) to edit their own work. This might particularly be of use to those who are struggling with the intricacies of English either because it is not their native language, or because they haven't been taught how to properly communicate with formal, or even semi-formal English. Some of my SAT students, for example, have great difficulty with the basic rules of grammar (more on that in another post) and their college essays would benefit from professional editing. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the students who are most in need of this service are those who are least able to afford it.
There is also the question of misrepresentation. If a college entrance essay is supposed to give a sense of the person who wrote it, might the use of a professional editor be misleading, if not unethical? Or perhaps the point is more the ideas and their articulation, rather than the raw mechanics of writing that an editor would be concerned with. In either event, I don't think that I can recommend this service to my students (not that they could use it for their exam essays) as it probably conflicts with my status as a Test Prep Company employee. Further, having not used the service myself, I can't vouch for its quality. Nor can I say that it is better, or cheaper, or faster, or what-have-you-er than its competitors (if it doesn't have competitors yet, I expect it will within the year.)
And, I am forced to acknowledge that my own application essays were looked over by a professional secretary who was well-schooled in spelling and grammar (viz, my mother), and I expect that many of my fellow students at the time had similar help from their parents or teachers. So, I suppose that schools expect there to be a certain amount of editing. That being the case, perhaps mentioning the availability of such a service might be acceptable, if I don't mention any specific service.
Someone has capitalized on this need. Gramlee (TM) employs a staff of independent editors who promise to turn around smaller documents (less than 4000 words) by email in under 24 hours (longer documents may take longer). How good they are I don't know, but the notion of an online service of this sort appeals to me, for although I have a fair understanding of grammar and spelling, I am not perfect, nor am I a very accurate typist. This sort of service may be of use to me for my more important writing (e.g. my thesis), though I think that I'd want a single editor, rather than a pool of editors, to work with for my novel, assuming that I ever get said novel to a point where an editor would be called for.
I can also see the use of such a service for others who lack the time or skills (or inclination) to edit their own work. This might particularly be of use to those who are struggling with the intricacies of English either because it is not their native language, or because they haven't been taught how to properly communicate with formal, or even semi-formal English. Some of my SAT students, for example, have great difficulty with the basic rules of grammar (more on that in another post) and their college essays would benefit from professional editing. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the students who are most in need of this service are those who are least able to afford it.
There is also the question of misrepresentation. If a college entrance essay is supposed to give a sense of the person who wrote it, might the use of a professional editor be misleading, if not unethical? Or perhaps the point is more the ideas and their articulation, rather than the raw mechanics of writing that an editor would be concerned with. In either event, I don't think that I can recommend this service to my students (not that they could use it for their exam essays) as it probably conflicts with my status as a Test Prep Company employee. Further, having not used the service myself, I can't vouch for its quality. Nor can I say that it is better, or cheaper, or faster, or what-have-you-er than its competitors (if it doesn't have competitors yet, I expect it will within the year.)
And, I am forced to acknowledge that my own application essays were looked over by a professional secretary who was well-schooled in spelling and grammar (viz, my mother), and I expect that many of my fellow students at the time had similar help from their parents or teachers. So, I suppose that schools expect there to be a certain amount of editing. That being the case, perhaps mentioning the availability of such a service might be acceptable, if I don't mention any specific service.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
A book report on Catch-22
One of my SAT students is supposed to write a book report on Joseph Heller's Catch-22. "Oh, that's a good book," I tell him. Have you gotten to Lieutenant Scheisskopf yet?"
His reposnse, "Can I just watch the movie and get a sense of the book?
Read the novel. You might enjoy it!
His reposnse, "Can I just watch the movie and get a sense of the book?
Read the novel. You might enjoy it!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The decay of play
I'm listening to a story on NPR regarding the nature of play, its value, and how in the latter half of the 20th century it has degraded.
First, the nature of toys has increasingly scripted the nature of play. An electronic fire truck that flashes its lights and says three phrases is likely to only be used in the context of those three phrases.
Second, an increased concern for safety has moved children into more structured activities. Extracurricular sports, music lessons, etc are directed, and typically come at the expense of free (i.e. imaginative and unregulated) play.
Third, an increased worry about testing and academic achievement has led schools to spend more time "teaching to the test", and less time in free play.
The result? According to NPR, free play builds self-regulation skills - less free play: poorer self regulation.
And in other news, the Smurfs are back.
First, the nature of toys has increasingly scripted the nature of play. An electronic fire truck that flashes its lights and says three phrases is likely to only be used in the context of those three phrases.
Second, an increased concern for safety has moved children into more structured activities. Extracurricular sports, music lessons, etc are directed, and typically come at the expense of free (i.e. imaginative and unregulated) play.
Third, an increased worry about testing and academic achievement has led schools to spend more time "teaching to the test", and less time in free play.
The result? According to NPR, free play builds self-regulation skills - less free play: poorer self regulation.
And in other news, the Smurfs are back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
