0 members (),
67
guests, and
11
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 60 |
OK, I'm in a bad-homework-question quandry at work.
I'm an English as a second language teacher at a junior high. Part of my job is helping content area teachers alter their materials to be more accessible for English language learners. I define the words in simpler terms, trying to lose as little meaning as possible (which is kind of a fun challenge, in a way).
Annnnnnnnnyway... this afternoon, I was work on the vocab for a seventh grade social studies class. Their political science unit includes the types of government, and includes the following: *republic *democracy *oligarchy *anarchy *dictatorship *monarchy *COMMUNISM
BUT! Communism is not a type of government. You could have a communist dictatorship, a communist republic, a communist oligarchy... but COMMUNISM IS NOT A TYPE OF GOVERNMENT.
So. What's a first-year-in-this-building teacher to do? I'm supposed to work off the content area teachers' materials, and only adjust for comprehension purposes. Do I call out teachers on their content-area knowledge and/or accuracy? After all, I'm NOT a social studies teacher. They're the "experts" in that area; I'm theoretically just supposed to be helping with language acquisition stuff. I either have to create, teach, and assess material that contains an inaccuracy, or I have to battle coworkers with whom I need to work pretty closely for at least the next seven months (hopefully longer).
Interesting side note: I know that they used to teach that communism was not a type of government. I know, because I took seventh grade social studies at this school... actually, in the room in which I'm currently teaching ESL Literature and Writing. <--useless factoid
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Well, I think that the obvious thing to do is to ask if "Capitalism" belongs on the list. You know, like you're concerned that it might have been left off. Er... or... something. I'm sly like that, though.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 60 |
Well, I think that the obvious thing to do is to ask if "Capitalism" belongs on the list. You know, like you're concerned that it might have been left off. Er... or... something. I'm sly like that, though. Hmm... I was raised Upper Midwestern Catholic. If I do anything well, it's passive agressive.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 954
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 954 |
~amy
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478 |
But DS said, no she's not correct because she should have rounded to 50 not 40 and then she would have realized she didn't have enough beads. Seems to me that given specific quantity needs, the correct answer is that this is not an appropriate time to use estimation. 47 would also round to 50, but 3x47 < 144.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,457
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,457 |
But DS said, no she's not correct because she should have rounded to 50 not 40 and then she would have realized she didn't have enough beads. Seems to me that given specific quantity needs, the correct answer is that this is not an appropriate time to use estimation. 47 would also round to 50, but 3x47 < 144. Bingo.
Striving to increase my rate of flow, and fight forum gloopiness.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
They're really obsessed with estimation and rounding in 3 and 4, aren't they? I don't quite follow why, given the clear limits of the technique, as seen above. (Then you have the previous Stupid Homework Question about estimates vs. exact amounts that I cited earlier in the thread.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
Anyway, I really would think that you are supposed to say that Sasha rounded wrong.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Anyway, I really would think that you are supposed to say that Sasha rounded wrong. Then again, maybe they're trying to teach the kids something about using the right tool for the job. Because if she knows she's making exactly three necklaces, each requiring exactly 49 beads, and she has exactly 144 beads... why is Sasha estimating at all?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 288
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 288 |
Good point, Zen! And I agree ultramarina, I don't know why they are so obsessed with rounding! I feel like it puts the cart before the horse. Once you are really comfortable with solving the actual problems, the rounding just becomes a sensible short cut that we use to save time. I've never felt like it makes sense to "teach" them how to round before teaching them how to calculate the actual problems since it is a less accurate approach. We have had multiple homework assignments in 2nd & 3rd where he was told to estimate the answer first and then find the actual answer second. He almost always does the calculation first and then goes back and does the rounding and I let him. When the actual calculation only takes a second for him to do, estimating does not seem useful to me (or him!). And, I do hope that the answer they were looking for was that Sasha made a mistake. But I am just not sure because the similar question on the review sheet was just a straightforward estimation question. But who knows? At this point, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since there were no $60 bills on the test!
|
|
|
|
|