Aharon asked me this morning if Hashem speaks to people using words because He knows that humans invented speech and so is that why He communicates that way?
I wasn't exactly sure what he was getting at. I realized that a few weeks ago he asked me about who invented language, how language got started. I gave him a rather paltry summary of linguistics (meaning I told him there is a field of study where people explore these questions), and explained that speech is something that humans can do naturally, but also learn to do. And how we think speech evolved.
Last week, he asked me how Hashem speaks with no mouth--does He make a mouth? And clarified (to the extent a 7yo can grasp) non-physicality. And distinguished between non-physicality vs. non-existence.
At the time, when I was answering those questions, I really had no idea where he was going with this. It turns out that he's been pondering a lot of philosophical issues.
When he turned to me this morning, he hit pause on his video game or youtube video to ask me that question.
One of the things my kids have always said they love about homeschooling is the time to think about things. A kid his age may appear to be spending a lot of time playing video games or watching youtube videos, but he's also daydreaming and pondering Divine Incorporeality and what exactly prophecy means and how it works. How can Hashem, who has no body, "touch" or come in contact with the physical world?
I said Hashem doesn't just have to use words; He can also use dreams and images.
These conversations range over the course of weeks and months. I had no idea when my second grader was asking about language, that he was thinking about Hashem.
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
more unschooling and multimedia
Today I want to talk about Agar.io.
Agar.io is a silly little game where you are a circle and you go around eating other circles. If you touch a circle smaller than you, you eat it. If you touch a circle larger than you, it eats you. Some circles are just dots. Some are other players.
Aside from the debates I often hear and read about multimedia time, I also hear debates about multimedia content.
I can understand parents limiting screen time and being cautious about content.
I have tried to interest my children in "educational games." I found, unfortunately, that educational games are not as interesting as other games (except minecraft, which is mind-bogglingly educational and endlessly absorbing). Radical Unschooling, I discovered later, theorizes that if the child is fascinated by something, the child is learning something. And it is in pursuit of that fascination that learning other things occur. The classic example given in the unschooling world is the child who, let's say, is fascinated by airplanes, and who eventually at age 9 learns to read when he discovers that reading unlocks the world of knowledge that he is interested in. This happened with Elazar when he realized that reading taught him coding.
Unschoolers are pragmatically brutal: the knowledge must be intensely useful or fun, or else they don't pursue it. Elazar and Jack are currently both at a level of reading that is satisfactory to them, and they independently read many things in the course of their day. When they eventually get frustrated with their level of reading because they want to know more things, they will naturally and efficiently improve their reading levels.
Chana spent many preschool hours watching, pausing, and rewinding cartoons, a classically "pointless" activity--which later gave her the ability to have nuance in facial expressions as an animator. I also bought her fancy animation software which she taught herself at age 10 or so.
So back to Agar.io. I would have thought it's a purposeless game. You name your circle and you go. But the naming of the circle has brought about all sorts of surprising outcomes.
1) There are something called "skins." When you name your circle, if you name it "CIA" then you get a little circle with cliched sunglasses. If you name it "Sir" then you get a circle with a mustache and a monocle. There is a world of adorable skins, and discovering them and making them yours is a delight.
2) You can't communicate with other circles. Or can you? Jack has been naming his "Please help me" (he spells it "ples") and all sorts of other communication phrases. This lets him build teams, something that Elazar discovered.
But the most shocking (to me) aside from Elazar and Jack writing and sounding out words, is Aharon. Aharon is only 4 and in playing this game, he asks me how to write things dozens of times a day. He often writes things down on paper so that he can refer back to them. He wants to write things like "All of you in Agar.io are all garbage" (he's trash talking the other circles). This does not fit in the allotted space, but he has tremendous patience as he yells across the room to me "..L. What's next?" Jack learned proficiency with the keyboard when he was 5 and wanted to write "candy crush" all the time until in desperation I created a google account for him so that google would remember his searches. I am shocked by how much Aharon is immersing himself in typing so that he can write what he wants. He is so patient (and he usually has quite a temper) and spends so much time working on the letters as he writes his messages and skins.
When Elazar got his tablet and realized how easy it is to use a microphone to google search I was afraid that he wouldn't learn to write as much because he can just say what he wants. But I'm beginning to see that fear was unfounded. Unlocking the door to more knowledge, to easier access to information, is better than I could have dreamed. We live in an astonishing time in history, when my small children have instant access to knowing whatever they want about anything they can think of. All they have to do is ask. The efficiency and delight is staggering.
(Sidepoint--I have a rule that all screens stay on the main floor so that I can sort of keep an eye/ear on what they are searching/watching. No unsupervised screens in bedrooms. Both Sarah and Chana had those rules (with ipod and ipad) until they were at an age where they brought up that they thought they were mature enough to police their own content and decide for themselves what was appropriate or not for themselves. I don't know what my rules will be with the boys. I tend to veer towards open information and towards training to practice self-regulation. But we will see what emerges.)
Agar.io is a silly little game where you are a circle and you go around eating other circles. If you touch a circle smaller than you, you eat it. If you touch a circle larger than you, it eats you. Some circles are just dots. Some are other players.
Aside from the debates I often hear and read about multimedia time, I also hear debates about multimedia content.
I can understand parents limiting screen time and being cautious about content.
I have tried to interest my children in "educational games." I found, unfortunately, that educational games are not as interesting as other games (except minecraft, which is mind-bogglingly educational and endlessly absorbing). Radical Unschooling, I discovered later, theorizes that if the child is fascinated by something, the child is learning something. And it is in pursuit of that fascination that learning other things occur. The classic example given in the unschooling world is the child who, let's say, is fascinated by airplanes, and who eventually at age 9 learns to read when he discovers that reading unlocks the world of knowledge that he is interested in. This happened with Elazar when he realized that reading taught him coding.
Unschoolers are pragmatically brutal: the knowledge must be intensely useful or fun, or else they don't pursue it. Elazar and Jack are currently both at a level of reading that is satisfactory to them, and they independently read many things in the course of their day. When they eventually get frustrated with their level of reading because they want to know more things, they will naturally and efficiently improve their reading levels.
Chana spent many preschool hours watching, pausing, and rewinding cartoons, a classically "pointless" activity--which later gave her the ability to have nuance in facial expressions as an animator. I also bought her fancy animation software which she taught herself at age 10 or so.
So back to Agar.io. I would have thought it's a purposeless game. You name your circle and you go. But the naming of the circle has brought about all sorts of surprising outcomes.
1) There are something called "skins." When you name your circle, if you name it "CIA" then you get a little circle with cliched sunglasses. If you name it "Sir" then you get a circle with a mustache and a monocle. There is a world of adorable skins, and discovering them and making them yours is a delight.
2) You can't communicate with other circles. Or can you? Jack has been naming his "Please help me" (he spells it "ples") and all sorts of other communication phrases. This lets him build teams, something that Elazar discovered.
But the most shocking (to me) aside from Elazar and Jack writing and sounding out words, is Aharon. Aharon is only 4 and in playing this game, he asks me how to write things dozens of times a day. He often writes things down on paper so that he can refer back to them. He wants to write things like "All of you in Agar.io are all garbage" (he's trash talking the other circles). This does not fit in the allotted space, but he has tremendous patience as he yells across the room to me "..L. What's next?" Jack learned proficiency with the keyboard when he was 5 and wanted to write "candy crush" all the time until in desperation I created a google account for him so that google would remember his searches. I am shocked by how much Aharon is immersing himself in typing so that he can write what he wants. He is so patient (and he usually has quite a temper) and spends so much time working on the letters as he writes his messages and skins.
When Elazar got his tablet and realized how easy it is to use a microphone to google search I was afraid that he wouldn't learn to write as much because he can just say what he wants. But I'm beginning to see that fear was unfounded. Unlocking the door to more knowledge, to easier access to information, is better than I could have dreamed. We live in an astonishing time in history, when my small children have instant access to knowing whatever they want about anything they can think of. All they have to do is ask. The efficiency and delight is staggering.
(Sidepoint--I have a rule that all screens stay on the main floor so that I can sort of keep an eye/ear on what they are searching/watching. No unsupervised screens in bedrooms. Both Sarah and Chana had those rules (with ipod and ipad) until they were at an age where they brought up that they thought they were mature enough to police their own content and decide for themselves what was appropriate or not for themselves. I don't know what my rules will be with the boys. I tend to veer towards open information and towards training to practice self-regulation. But we will see what emerges.)
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Killing Monsters by Gerard Jones: book review
An unschooling mom suggested this book to me when we were talking about violent shooting games for her 13yo and I asked her why she allowed them. My boys are currently 6, almost 4, and 2. So violent games are not really on their radar now.
As I've encountered so frequently in the past, what people say about the book gives me a certain feeling about a book, which is completely different than how I feel when I actually read the book. I was reluctant to read Freud for years, feeling that he was arrogant and obnoxious. In reality, when I read him inside, I found him charming. The reviews of Killing Monsters either felt what he said was obvious and simplistic, or they raved about how wonderfully he defends violent video games. I had a completely different experience reading the book.
Of special note is his analysis of the research that states that violent video games and media lead to violent behavior. He makes a compelling case that the research is insufficient, out of date, too simplistic and incorrectly interpreted. He discusses how nuanced the range of violence is (from Tom & Jerry to slasher films, from a few punches to lots of blood) and how inaccurately the ensuing "violent behavior" was diagnosed, and how we would really have to categorize each type and study the effects in better designed studies.
In order to better explain how this book affected me, I should explain that 17 years ago I started off parenting opposed to all multimedia. In general I felt that it's preferable to make up games and stories rather than watch or play them. I hoped to avoid all movies, books and TV shows that encouraged fantasy, preferring stories that dealt with conflicts that children have and present emotionally healthy resolutions.
My first misconception was that children are blank slates and that they won't have unrealistic fantasies without being exposed to them. I eventually came to see the absurdity of that, and realized that there is an inherent human struggle between fantasy and reality, and this is a human conflict that every person will wrestle with, regardless of how many or how few movies and stories that person has been exposed to. (However, I still felt that there is no need to go out of my way to show them to my children, and thought there might be a possibility that a fantasy might be unhealthily concretized by a movie or story.)
Gerard Jones brought up Bruno Bettelheim and how he wrote about the psychological value of fairy tales. I had heard of the book but never read it. I wonder if I should read it now. I've now been looking at all entertainment through the lenses of Killing Monsters and I feel like I'd been looking at everything too literally and completely missing the point and not understanding what it does emotionally for children (and probably for adults, too).
I am not certain I understand exactly what the book says about the benefit of violent games and stories. At times I found what he said incredibly insightful and eye opening, and at times I felt he was unclear or contradictory or not really on point psychologically.
What I gained from the book:
1. Stories help kids deal with fears and conflicts by playing with them.
Children have their internal aggression to cope with, and are concerned about violence in society. Stories that show people being violent are a relief because then they know other people are thinking about it, too. Media expresses the fears that kids have and makes them explicit.
The stories also play with different endings and possibilities. It shows that these thoughts are not inherently scary, but part of the range of human possibility.
2. Really insightful analyses of girl action fantasies and of Pokemon.
I never really understood why the girls have to be so scantily clad. It turns out it's not just for hormonal young lads. He explained the incredible fascination with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and how it plays with girl power and being sexy/attractive and physically and mentally powerful at the same time.
His explanation of Pokemon showed me how it is a metaphor for childhood and how no matter what type of mood or personality, there is a pokemon that matches it. And how it's a metaphor for growing up, and learning to work with unruly aspects of themselves that refuse to stay in their pokeballs. He also explained why Misty was such a beloved character. I always felt that characters that displayed immaturity or explosiveness or thoughtlessness were not good role models because they "teach" children that it's okay to behave that way. What I missed is that seeing characters struggling through life with their explosiveness etc. is exactly what children are thirsty for. They are so relieved that their conflicts are being expressed.
3. How important play is, and how media gives children forms to play with.
I don't think that Gerard Jones said this explicitly, but based on what I read in Playful Parenting, play is vitally important to help children sort through their emotions. Play is the best way and the most fun way and the easiest way. Perhaps the most valuable thing that multimedia provides are paradigms that children seize upon and use in their own play. He brings the example of his own five year old son fusing Power Rangers and Teletubbies to play through his desires for both power and nurturing. I saw immediately how this related to Chana playing "Marth and Roy" when she was five with the neighbor's son for hours. And how Elazar plays "Young Link" and his friend plays "Captain America." I don't know what exactly they see in these characters, what themes of power and strength, but they take them and make them theirs and play with their conflicts and fears and desires. In my opinion, although Gerard Jones doesn't say so, having children play using the characters they see is perhaps the most valuable aspect of watching media.
He does mention that comic books and movies and video games are really useful for preteens and teenagers, when it is no longer socially acceptable to play. It gives them a forum where they can playfully and fictionally deal with these thoughts and conflicts.
He did talk about when teenagers get too entrenched in it and either I didn't understand it or he wasn't clear. It does seem very important that adults be available to converse about it if the child wants, and to approach it from the standpoint of interest and not criticism. We must understand that the media is speaking to the emotions and conflicts of the child in a profound way. An example that he brought is how so many teenagers love Eminem. They are so relieved that he is expressing their rage. That they aren't alone in these overwhelming feelings. That he isn't being hypocritical. That he is real.
4. Parents are the ones who aren't distinguishing between reality and fantasy.
This was a really eye opening point. Children use stories as a way to help them process their feelings. They know the difference between hurting people in real life and hurting people on TV, and in case they don't, the first time they do so they are going to get a very quick lesson (Playful Parenting talks a lot about roughhousing and how it helps children learn appropriate force). Children who have trouble with self control and aggression will do better if they can play appropriate games for these issues. It is us parents who are concerned that because our child enjoys watching or playing killing that they might end up killing. The child knows s/he is just engaging in fantasy. Have some conversations with your child and you will see that s/he knows the difference.
Although I used to disapprove of many shows, movies, songs and other media that told stories with unhealthy or unrealistic messages, I have begun looking at them all with the question: What powerful feeling is this expressing, and what enjoyment is my child getting? What fantasy is this child playing with, and how does it reflect a frustration, concern, or stress that s/he has in real life? What does s/he LIKE about this?
Instead of threats to my children's optimal development, I now see expressions of struggles and conflicts. I see paradigms for them to play with and explore. I see meekness, power, sexuality, violence, fear, anger, love, and the full gamut of human emotion that our society tells children not to express and to control. As long as civilization demands self control, there will be stories grappling with and expressing the lack of it. And they will grip our thoughts and minds as we struggle.
As I've encountered so frequently in the past, what people say about the book gives me a certain feeling about a book, which is completely different than how I feel when I actually read the book. I was reluctant to read Freud for years, feeling that he was arrogant and obnoxious. In reality, when I read him inside, I found him charming. The reviews of Killing Monsters either felt what he said was obvious and simplistic, or they raved about how wonderfully he defends violent video games. I had a completely different experience reading the book.
Of special note is his analysis of the research that states that violent video games and media lead to violent behavior. He makes a compelling case that the research is insufficient, out of date, too simplistic and incorrectly interpreted. He discusses how nuanced the range of violence is (from Tom & Jerry to slasher films, from a few punches to lots of blood) and how inaccurately the ensuing "violent behavior" was diagnosed, and how we would really have to categorize each type and study the effects in better designed studies.
In order to better explain how this book affected me, I should explain that 17 years ago I started off parenting opposed to all multimedia. In general I felt that it's preferable to make up games and stories rather than watch or play them. I hoped to avoid all movies, books and TV shows that encouraged fantasy, preferring stories that dealt with conflicts that children have and present emotionally healthy resolutions.
My first misconception was that children are blank slates and that they won't have unrealistic fantasies without being exposed to them. I eventually came to see the absurdity of that, and realized that there is an inherent human struggle between fantasy and reality, and this is a human conflict that every person will wrestle with, regardless of how many or how few movies and stories that person has been exposed to. (However, I still felt that there is no need to go out of my way to show them to my children, and thought there might be a possibility that a fantasy might be unhealthily concretized by a movie or story.)
Gerard Jones brought up Bruno Bettelheim and how he wrote about the psychological value of fairy tales. I had heard of the book but never read it. I wonder if I should read it now. I've now been looking at all entertainment through the lenses of Killing Monsters and I feel like I'd been looking at everything too literally and completely missing the point and not understanding what it does emotionally for children (and probably for adults, too).
I am not certain I understand exactly what the book says about the benefit of violent games and stories. At times I found what he said incredibly insightful and eye opening, and at times I felt he was unclear or contradictory or not really on point psychologically.
What I gained from the book:
1. Stories help kids deal with fears and conflicts by playing with them.
Children have their internal aggression to cope with, and are concerned about violence in society. Stories that show people being violent are a relief because then they know other people are thinking about it, too. Media expresses the fears that kids have and makes them explicit.
The stories also play with different endings and possibilities. It shows that these thoughts are not inherently scary, but part of the range of human possibility.
2. Really insightful analyses of girl action fantasies and of Pokemon.
I never really understood why the girls have to be so scantily clad. It turns out it's not just for hormonal young lads. He explained the incredible fascination with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and how it plays with girl power and being sexy/attractive and physically and mentally powerful at the same time.
His explanation of Pokemon showed me how it is a metaphor for childhood and how no matter what type of mood or personality, there is a pokemon that matches it. And how it's a metaphor for growing up, and learning to work with unruly aspects of themselves that refuse to stay in their pokeballs. He also explained why Misty was such a beloved character. I always felt that characters that displayed immaturity or explosiveness or thoughtlessness were not good role models because they "teach" children that it's okay to behave that way. What I missed is that seeing characters struggling through life with their explosiveness etc. is exactly what children are thirsty for. They are so relieved that their conflicts are being expressed.
3. How important play is, and how media gives children forms to play with.
I don't think that Gerard Jones said this explicitly, but based on what I read in Playful Parenting, play is vitally important to help children sort through their emotions. Play is the best way and the most fun way and the easiest way. Perhaps the most valuable thing that multimedia provides are paradigms that children seize upon and use in their own play. He brings the example of his own five year old son fusing Power Rangers and Teletubbies to play through his desires for both power and nurturing. I saw immediately how this related to Chana playing "Marth and Roy" when she was five with the neighbor's son for hours. And how Elazar plays "Young Link" and his friend plays "Captain America." I don't know what exactly they see in these characters, what themes of power and strength, but they take them and make them theirs and play with their conflicts and fears and desires. In my opinion, although Gerard Jones doesn't say so, having children play using the characters they see is perhaps the most valuable aspect of watching media.
He does mention that comic books and movies and video games are really useful for preteens and teenagers, when it is no longer socially acceptable to play. It gives them a forum where they can playfully and fictionally deal with these thoughts and conflicts.
He did talk about when teenagers get too entrenched in it and either I didn't understand it or he wasn't clear. It does seem very important that adults be available to converse about it if the child wants, and to approach it from the standpoint of interest and not criticism. We must understand that the media is speaking to the emotions and conflicts of the child in a profound way. An example that he brought is how so many teenagers love Eminem. They are so relieved that he is expressing their rage. That they aren't alone in these overwhelming feelings. That he isn't being hypocritical. That he is real.
4. Parents are the ones who aren't distinguishing between reality and fantasy.
This was a really eye opening point. Children use stories as a way to help them process their feelings. They know the difference between hurting people in real life and hurting people on TV, and in case they don't, the first time they do so they are going to get a very quick lesson (Playful Parenting talks a lot about roughhousing and how it helps children learn appropriate force). Children who have trouble with self control and aggression will do better if they can play appropriate games for these issues. It is us parents who are concerned that because our child enjoys watching or playing killing that they might end up killing. The child knows s/he is just engaging in fantasy. Have some conversations with your child and you will see that s/he knows the difference.
Although I used to disapprove of many shows, movies, songs and other media that told stories with unhealthy or unrealistic messages, I have begun looking at them all with the question: What powerful feeling is this expressing, and what enjoyment is my child getting? What fantasy is this child playing with, and how does it reflect a frustration, concern, or stress that s/he has in real life? What does s/he LIKE about this?
Instead of threats to my children's optimal development, I now see expressions of struggles and conflicts. I see paradigms for them to play with and explore. I see meekness, power, sexuality, violence, fear, anger, love, and the full gamut of human emotion that our society tells children not to express and to control. As long as civilization demands self control, there will be stories grappling with and expressing the lack of it. And they will grip our thoughts and minds as we struggle.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Another argument for unlimited multimedia
I downloaded Seth Godin's book Stop Stealing Dreams. I'm 32% through it. I have read some of Seth Godin's posts via Trent from The Simple Dollar's roundup edition, where he appears regularly. I am fascinated by his understanding of the post-industrialized world, the world of connection, and his description of the educational model that will be effective. He writes about how even 5th graders can educate themselves with this new connectivity. I have seen this with Chana; in her quest for animation, she finds techniques that she wants to learn, and then she contacts the people who do it and requests tips, or, even better, for them to make a youtube tutorial. Within a few hours, a tutorial is up in response. She then can ask questions. It's remarkable.
I'm really looking forward to reading the rest. It confirms that the unschooling, or "child-led" model of education is efficient and full of passion and excitement.
He says (and it's obvious, really, but Seth Godin is always full of good sense that is obvious in retrospect and I need him to say it), the connectivity of instant, world wide communication allows people with the same passions and interests to find each other. Now we can have conversations with each other and learn and grow from each other. And collaborate. And information doesn't need to be hoarded or memorized. It is all instantly available.
Here is a quote that is apropos of the question of allowing children unlimited access to technology and multimedia:
A citizen can spend his spare time getting smarter, more motivated, and more involved, or he can tune out, drop out, and entertain himself into a stupor.
Nurturing children to follow their passions will likely encourage them, especially with unlimited media access, to follow dreams. Another quote: "Settling for the not-particularly uplifting dream of a boring, steady job isn't helpful. Dreaming of being picked--picked to be on TV...or picked to be lucky--isn't helpful either..The dreams we need are self-reliant dreams. We need dreams based not on what is but on what might be. We need students who can learn how to learn, who can discover how to push themselves and are generous enough and honest enough to engage with the outside world to make those dreams happen."
I'm really looking forward to reading the rest. It confirms that the unschooling, or "child-led" model of education is efficient and full of passion and excitement.
He says (and it's obvious, really, but Seth Godin is always full of good sense that is obvious in retrospect and I need him to say it), the connectivity of instant, world wide communication allows people with the same passions and interests to find each other. Now we can have conversations with each other and learn and grow from each other. And collaborate. And information doesn't need to be hoarded or memorized. It is all instantly available.
Here is a quote that is apropos of the question of allowing children unlimited access to technology and multimedia:
A citizen can spend his spare time getting smarter, more motivated, and more involved, or he can tune out, drop out, and entertain himself into a stupor.
Nurturing children to follow their passions will likely encourage them, especially with unlimited media access, to follow dreams. Another quote: "Settling for the not-particularly uplifting dream of a boring, steady job isn't helpful. Dreaming of being picked--picked to be on TV...or picked to be lucky--isn't helpful either..The dreams we need are self-reliant dreams. We need dreams based not on what is but on what might be. We need students who can learn how to learn, who can discover how to push themselves and are generous enough and honest enough to engage with the outside world to make those dreams happen."
Monday, March 5, 2012
on choice in unschooling
As far as video game execs creating games to suck in my kid as long as
possible, I once read an education article saying that video games
are the perfect paradigm of education. They are challenging in difficulty,
getting incrementally more challenging in an exciting way that builds up
and up as you improve. They give emotional satisfaction from solving
problems. Those are the factors that make video games great :-) I try
to model my lessons after them.
Again, I will be keeping a close eye on elazar and the other boys when they get old enough, but right now the part that he loves is the figuring out, the mastering, and the achievement. Leonard Sax's point is well taken that boys need these same satisfactions in the real world, or they risk being sucked in to enjoy it via media and not deal with the frustrations of the real world. But I hope homeschooling will give my boys many happy hours of enjoyable real world challenges. It may very well be that given a choice of the stifling way that we make boys behave vs media, that they will choose media.
Elazar woke up at 5:45, chose to snuggle for 1/2 hr, then watched Shrek III 2.5 times (I assume that's about 5 hrs. I heard him repeating some of the lines and mimicking their tone). Then he desperately wanted friend interaction and activity. Based on the Are You Hungry paradigm, I firmly believe that kids will choose activities the same way that they choose food, and IF all things are offered, and IF there are no underlying emotional issues that are being expressed, children will choose moderation and balance, and a mix of everything.
As I say over and over, I am open to the possibility that this is not true, and I will keep an eye to see what is happening. But so far all indications point to lots of choosing.
Again, I will be keeping a close eye on elazar and the other boys when they get old enough, but right now the part that he loves is the figuring out, the mastering, and the achievement. Leonard Sax's point is well taken that boys need these same satisfactions in the real world, or they risk being sucked in to enjoy it via media and not deal with the frustrations of the real world. But I hope homeschooling will give my boys many happy hours of enjoyable real world challenges. It may very well be that given a choice of the stifling way that we make boys behave vs media, that they will choose media.
Elazar woke up at 5:45, chose to snuggle for 1/2 hr, then watched Shrek III 2.5 times (I assume that's about 5 hrs. I heard him repeating some of the lines and mimicking their tone). Then he desperately wanted friend interaction and activity. Based on the Are You Hungry paradigm, I firmly believe that kids will choose activities the same way that they choose food, and IF all things are offered, and IF there are no underlying emotional issues that are being expressed, children will choose moderation and balance, and a mix of everything.
As I say over and over, I am open to the possibility that this is not true, and I will keep an eye to see what is happening. But so far all indications point to lots of choosing.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
night school
today i was so busy studying and thinking about the effects of video games and the question of restricting them that i didn't get any teaching done whatsoever.
we were supposed to work at 7:30pm, and chana agreed. but it wasn't until 8:30 that i was able to sit down with her. i decided to start with shlishi, even though we need chazara of sheni (and rishon, but like i said, i'm saving that for friday). i took a look at it, and determined that 8 pesukim wouldn't be too onerous for her. i planned to do review on some of sheni afterwards. but til we got through it, i was already moving on to rashi and then it was getting late and i really don't like to do work after 9pm. chana, though, was raring to go. when we stopped after 8 pesukim she begged for more. i said no, but she really wanted to keep going. then we did the rashis easily enough.
(funny: when pharoah said to yosef, "i am pharoah" she brought up a song about captain obvious.)
(she asked the question [doesn't yosef know that?] but didn't ponder long about the answer so i left it.)
then she zipped through 2 complicated fraction problems, reading, writing, and is full of energy.
she asked me why chumash wasn't hard for her tonight.
i think that the pesukim happened to be a perfect difficulty level for her. interesting, a little challenging, but not teeth breaking. also, we didn't do chazara, which she finds boring. also, she is a night owl. i must have mentioned this before. she loves working at night. she used to do all work at night. perhaps as the little one are getting more into a routine, we can work only at night, which is when her energy level for learning peaks (in contrast to mine, which is first thing in the morning).
we were supposed to work at 7:30pm, and chana agreed. but it wasn't until 8:30 that i was able to sit down with her. i decided to start with shlishi, even though we need chazara of sheni (and rishon, but like i said, i'm saving that for friday). i took a look at it, and determined that 8 pesukim wouldn't be too onerous for her. i planned to do review on some of sheni afterwards. but til we got through it, i was already moving on to rashi and then it was getting late and i really don't like to do work after 9pm. chana, though, was raring to go. when we stopped after 8 pesukim she begged for more. i said no, but she really wanted to keep going. then we did the rashis easily enough.
(funny: when pharoah said to yosef, "i am pharoah" she brought up a song about captain obvious.)
(she asked the question [doesn't yosef know that?] but didn't ponder long about the answer so i left it.)
then she zipped through 2 complicated fraction problems, reading, writing, and is full of energy.
she asked me why chumash wasn't hard for her tonight.
i think that the pesukim happened to be a perfect difficulty level for her. interesting, a little challenging, but not teeth breaking. also, we didn't do chazara, which she finds boring. also, she is a night owl. i must have mentioned this before. she loves working at night. she used to do all work at night. perhaps as the little one are getting more into a routine, we can work only at night, which is when her energy level for learning peaks (in contrast to mine, which is first thing in the morning).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
