Kindergarteners are funny.. you never know what they're going to say!
One of my little guys had a case of the hiccups this morning. He came up to me quite seriously and said "Miss W, I'm hicking up! That means I'm growing!"
I got a little giggle out of that one, especially with how serious he was... in between hiccups. :)
On 2/23/05, Allison W wrote: > Kindergarteners are funny.. you never know what they're > going to say! > > One of my little guys had a case of the hiccups this > morning. He came up to me quite seriously and said "Miss W, > I'm hicking up! That means I'm growing!" > > I got a little giggle out of that one, especially with how > serious he was... in between hiccups. :) > > Allison
>Yeah people could be so funny some times my computer neighbor ibn web design told me the same thing after she hiccuped..... except she said she felt an inch taller!!!!!
Dont know if you guys can help me but my grandpa, dad and sister all get the hiccups like every day but not the ordinary hiccups just like 10 or 20 is this normal, and is there anything that we can do to stop it. Cus it is not only annoying for them but annioying for everyone else!
It's 3 am and I'm supposed to be preparing my "concept development" class. We had a very helpful model! It went like this: DOG see this dog? He's huge and has brown hair what about this one-- medium sized with spots look at him-- tiny and black They all have 4 legs, a tail, 2 ears (maybe others? I spaced out for a few minutes in class here :) so that's a DOG!
After class I asked what I thought was an obvious question "You said we need to list 5 non-essential charactoristics, but how many essential charactoristics do we need?" She-- and the other students standing around-- looked at me like she couldn't have heard a dumber question from one of the model dogs and said "HOWEVER MANY THERE ARE!". Ohh.. so we got all the essential charactoristics of dog from your demonstration, huh? Let's test that theory!
Test question: Name one essential charactoristic of a dog Answer student gives for each test: 4 legs
class I: junior high ESL
Teacher wanted: any logical anser
Teacher response: knows word "charactoristic".. that's ourword of the week. The answer gets full credit if grammar of the sentence is intelligible
class II: 2nd grade
Teacher wanted: words used in science class
Teacher response: "Yes, 4 legs is a charatoristic of a dog-- but what about the words we used in class-- mammal, warm blood, or has an interior skeleton?" Thinks to self: OOPS, this is my fault.. that's an unclear question. Give this answer half credit? Let's see how the class does as a whole..
class III: 5th grade Teacher wanted: "science words" Teacher response: Thinks to self "Jack is so immature! "-- tells story to husband and laughs
class IV: junior high science Teacher wanted: a semi-scientific anser
Teacher response: Writes on paper: "I don't like your attitude"
class V: AP or college biology Teacher wanted:
the chart:
Kingdom: Animala Phlyum: vertabrate (stuff I don't know in the middle:) Species: canis
Teacher response: Comment on paper: "Why are you in this class?" (high school) "Do us both a favor and drop this class.. find a class on comedy writing instead" (college)
class VI: 3rd year vet school Teacher wanted: hell if I know :)! Teacher response: woke up dazed in the hospital after passing out
You know what really gets me? Besides the fact that the covering of "essential charactoristics of dogs" left a few holes-- see above :)-- even the bare bones charactoristics we covered are wrong! Dogs do NOT have to have 4 legs.. my friend's dog got his leg amputed and he's still a dog. Imagine saying "2 arms and 2 legs" is a charactoristic of a human-- a disabled group would have your head on a platter, and I see that semi-seriously.
So that's my lesson on "concept development: dog". I think I did very well, because I engaged in critical thinking and incorporated Bloom's taxomony by showing that in more advanced classes the same question looks for answers that are higher on Bloom's taxomony.
Well it's been about year since I wrote the post, but if anyone is still reading...:). First, sorry about how hard my orginal post was to read; somehow the formatting came out badly on the screeen. Also: yes I know I misspelled characteristic-- as I said it was 3 am when I wrote the post :).
I completely disagree with this poster-- sorry. It's been a year since I had this class and I still remember it clearly. What occured was that the teacher showed us pictures of many types of dogs (huge white ones, tiny spotted ones, etc.) and we saw the common characteristics (see.. I can spell the word now :) of all the pictures and thus defined a "dog" as all the characteristics the pictures (and thus "dogs") have in common. This is completely absurd..I tried to explain why in a funny way at 3 am a year ago.. let me explain why in a more serious way now. A) You can't obviously indentify many of the most important characteristics of a dog-- like "canine DNA"-- by looking at a picture, and our list of essential characteristics of a dog left out most of the truly essential characteristics of a dog (interior skeleton, species canis, etc.). B) The external essential characteristics of a dog that we indentified as essential are not essential--4 legs is not an essential characteristic of a dog but rather a feature that most (but not all) dogs have. C) No teacher but an ESL or foreign language teacher would even accept "4 legs" as an answer to the question "Name an essential characteristic of a dog". 1) In a second grade a good answer might be "warm blooded" 2) By high school biology is should be something like "species canis" 3) In a college biology class for majors an answer might involve describing something essential about canine DNA.. I don't really know. 4) I can't even begin to guess what answer a professor would want from a 3rd year student in a veterinary program would want as an answer to this question :). D) What bothered me was the way a very complex "concept" was boxed into a completely false definition based on only what we see.. imagine looking at pictures of humans (George Bush, a starving child from Somalia, an Asian basketball player, a beautiful mixed race infant.. and so on) and defining a "human" as what all pictures have in common: 2 arms 2 legs teeth (maybe? the infant probably doesn't have any) 10 fingers (skin color, size, sex, etc. are "non essential characteristics" of humans) Does ANYONE think that's a good way to define a human?? Yet that's how we were taught to define "dog" for our students. AND we are supposed to define abstract concepts (like poetry) based on this model... by reading some poems and deciding that whatever common characteristics we can see make them all "poems" and thus define poetry. If you wanted to play that game, "in English" would have to make the list because a few students in a typical education class in the United States could look at a poem in another language and tell you if it was really a poem or not.
I stand by my orginal ideas, but that's for the comment.
On 1/04/06, WF wrote: > Hello, > I find your post interesting but I wonder how much it has to > do with 'concept development'. It rather seems to be a > presentation of what characteristics the concept of the DOG > covers and how much this content depends on the demands of > the situation. The development of this concept, its progress > from the earliest images and features acquired with it, > takes time and exposure to the representations in the real > world. > I hope you agree with the above and find it stimulating > enough to further share your insights into the world of > concepts. > WF
On 5/28/06, OP wrote: > Well it's been about year since I wrote the post, but if anyone > is still reading...:). > First, sorry about how hard my orginal post was to read; somehow > the formatting came out badly on the screeen. Also: yes I know I > misspelled characteristic-- as I said it was 3 am when I wrote > the post :). > > I completely disagree with this poster-- sorry. It's been a year > since I had this class and I still remember it clearly. What > occured was that the teacher showed us pictures of many types of > dogs (huge white ones, tiny spotted ones, etc.) and we saw the > common characteristics (see.. I can spell the word now :) of all > the pictures and thus defined a "dog" as all the characteristics > the pictures (and thus "dogs") have in common. This is > completely absurd..I tried to explain why in a funny way at 3 am > a year ago.. let me explain why in a more serious way now. > A) You can't obviously indentify many of the most important > characteristics of a dog-- like "canine DNA"-- by looking at a > picture, and our list of essential characteristics of a dog left > out most of the truly essential characteristics of a dog > (interior skeleton, species canis, etc.). > B) The external essential characteristics of a dog that we > indentified as essential are not essential--4 legs is not an > essential characteristic of a dog but rather a feature that most > (but not all) dogs have. > C) No teacher but an ESL or foreign language teacher would even > accept "4 legs" as an answer to the question "Name an essential > characteristic of a dog". > 1) In a second grade a good answer might be "warm blooded" > 2) By high school biology is should be something like "species > canis" > 3) In a college biology class for majors an answer might involve > describing something essential about canine DNA.. I don't really > know. > 4) I can't even begin to guess what answer a professor would > want from a 3rd year student in a veterinary program would want > as an answer to this question :). > D) What bothered me was the way a very complex "concept" was > boxed into a completely false definition based on only what we > see.. imagine looking at pictures of humans (George Bush, a > starving child from Somalia, an Asian basketball player, a > beautiful mixed race infant.. and so on) and defining a "human" > as what all pictures have in common: > 2 arms > 2 legs > teeth (maybe? the infant probably doesn't have any) > 10 fingers > (skin color, size, sex, etc. are "non essential characteristics" > of humans) > Does ANYONE think that's a good way to define a human?? Yet > that's how we were taught to define "dog" for our students. AND > we are supposed to define abstract concepts (like poetry) based > on this model... by reading some poems and deciding that > whatever common characteristics we can see make them all "poems" > and thus define poetry. If you wanted to play that game, "in > English" would have to make the list because a few students in a > typical education class in the United States could look at a > poem in another language and tell you if it was really a poem or > not. > > I stand by my orginal ideas, but that's for the comment. > > > On 1/04/06, WF wrote: >> Hello, >> I find your post interesting but I wonder how much it has to >> do with 'concept development'. It rather seems to be a >> presentation of what characteristics the concept of the DOG >> covers and how much this content depends on the demands of >> the situation. The development of this concept, its progress >> from the earliest images and features acquired with it, >> takes time and exposure to the representations in the real >> world. >> I hope you agree with the above and find it stimulating >> enough to further share your insights into the world of >> concepts. >> WF
Hi, my name is caleb turner. Am from a native town called Moose Factory moose Cree First nation.I myself is native.I myself have a story or two about the "bigfoot". In are native beleaves..."the bigfoot", is the keeper of earth.Thats why you see him all over the world.And these bigfoot are spirites to us.thats why you can't find a corpes Sorry but i gotta go now
On 2/23/05, Allison W wrote:
> Kindergarteners are funny.. you never know what they're
> going to say!
>
> One of my little guys had a case of the hiccups this
> morning. He came up to me quite seriously and said "Miss W,
> I'm hicking up! That means I'm growing!"
>
> I ...See More