Teach Yourself, Kids!

[NurseNell]

I think teaching yourself a language is fairly easy as far as the written language. You need someone who speaks the language, or computer programs to really become very fluent at speaking. History is easily self taught, even some of the sciences. But math, chemistry, physics, not so much. I can see homeschooling for grade school but by junior high I think kids really do better attending a school.

[BlueChair]

While I do think it is possible to learn independently, I hate that these kids are missing out on what I loved so much about learning: having a teacher who deeply knows and loves the subject take the words from the text and bring it to life in their lesson. Yes, you can learn history from reading a book, but what about the discussion that brings out the nuances and underlying ideas behind it all? Had I learned history from just reading the texts, I would know a wealth of important dates and dynasties, but would have had a difficult time understanding the whys and wherefores of it all. Or I may have thought it was all about dates and dynasties and would have skipped over the whys and wherefores entirely.

A good teacher brings their subject to life for their students. I don't know how possible this is for the moms who are simply reading a chapter ahead of their kids in the curriculum and not providing any outside enrichment, and can't see how it happens at all when the kids are left to their own devices. They are being educated, sure, but they are being robbed of the experience of learning.

[desertvixen]

The only thing I can see teaching myself is History and some sciences that catch my eyes, but everything else hell no.

This is pretty much my take. I don't mind doing enrichment-type stuff, or teaching my daughter about the stuff I find interesting like animals or history, but no one needs me teaching them math.

[AmyP]

Good points!

Out of any subject, a foreign (or even dead ;) language is probably the hardest (most impossible) to teach oneself.

You may not be able to learn a foreign language from a book, but you can learn it from a well developed curriculum like Rosetta Stone.

Latin you can definately learn from a book.

[FJSharkJump]

They are being educated, sure, but they are being robbed of the experience of learning.

This is beautifully said.

[heinz57]

You may not be able to learn a foreign language from a book, but you can learn it from a well developed curriculum like Rosetta Stone.

Latin you can definately learn from a book.

I kept thinking about this today, and I think the fundamental question should actually be: WHY would they want to teach themselves a foreign language?

I always perceived languages as a way to open new doors to the world. After all it allows you to communicate, to talk to people from different cultures and confront your worldview with other options (something not encouraged in the fundie circles), to read literature (also frowned upon), to watch movies (another no-no), to find alternative sources of information (God help us) etc.

Latin is different, as is Biblical Hebrew, ancient Greek, or Koran Arabic - I think people don't learn those to talk to other people but as an academic tool. But why would you go into all the trouble of teaching yourself French, or Russian, or Japanese, if you don't intend on ever making use of it by exploring the world?

[Conuly]

To preach to the unconverted, obviously. And that's not sarcasm.

[heinz57]

To preach to the unconverted, obviously. And that's not sarcasm.

Hmm, good point.

But how many non-English-speaking non-Christians are there in southern Texas?

[heinz57]

On a completely unrelated note, there are "unendorsed links" on her page, that I presume are some google algorithm of the most common searches by her blog readers.

Unendorsed links

Shop for Atrix HD Accessories and more

Flip Flop Shoes

HTCTrek.com

Experienced orange county divorce lawyer

NASCAR construction toys by K'NEX

Kids Wall Stickers

auto insurance

Christian Web Hosting

child behavior problems

Toms Coupon Codes

It just made me laugh.

[rhododactylos]

You may not be able to learn a foreign language from a book, but you can learn it from a well developed curriculum like Rosetta Stone.

Latin you can definately learn from a book.

*steps onto Latin teacher soapbox*

I would respectfully disagree that Latin can be learned from a book. I am sure there are a few people who have successfully taught themselves Latin without a teacher. However, from my experience, most people who try to teach themselves from a book end up hopelessly confused. There are two major ways that Latin is learned. I won't go into detail here unless anyone wants to know, but learning Latin either requires an incredibly intricate understanding of English grammar, OR a teacher who can lead students in a reading/comprehensible input method. There is no way, from what I see, that students of the SOTDRT can have the English grammar knowledge to teach themselves. To be frank, most students in public schools don't understand it. I spend so much time in class teaching about subjective vs. objective nouns [who vs. whom], indirect objects, the English subjunctive system [may, might, can, etc.], gerunds vs. gerundives... The list goes on and on, and that's all in English! A Latin teacher can teach all of that English grammar AND how to translate that knowledge into the Latin language.

With modern languages, there is less of an issue, because a) the grammar has simplified over time and b) the majority are not inflected (by that I mean, the nouns don't change form depending on their usage in the sentence). Languages tend to simplify over time, just as a way of becoming more accessible to the general public. Latin is no longer evolving, and so it remains fairly complex. Additionally, there is no new Latin being produced. All we have are these pieces of literature, which were preserved (in general) for their complexity. There are new French, Spanish, and German texts being produced all the time, with significantly lower levels of complexity. Students of modern languages can read children's books and simple newspaper articles, exposing them to the language passively and allowing them to acquire it much in the same way our children acquire English as their first language. Unless parents make an effort to actively speak Latin to their young children and to read to them in Latin, Latin must be acquired artificially-- and thus, with the help of a teacher.

tl;dr: Don't assume that, just because no one speaks Latin any more, it can be learned from a book and without a teacher. In most cases, the book-only approach will result in students who can recognize vocabulary and translate simple textbook sentences, but cannot access any of the ancient texts-- which is the whole reason for learning Latin in the first place!

*gets off Latin teacher soapbox*

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Hmm, good point.

But how many non-English-speaking non-Christians are there in southern Texas?

They would be planning for some future exotic mission trips to foreign countries, no doubt. Right now there's plenty of people who go to various parts of Spanish-speaking South America to save the locals from that evil Catholicism, that sort of thing. (Though I suppose they might be able to do that in Texas...)

If they were serious about learning a foreign language for its own sake, Spanish would be a good one to go for, just because of the abundance of cheap native language resources (in the US generally, but particularly in Texas). If they were actually exploring they could sign up for all sorts of things taking place in Spanish. Of course the world is getting smaller generally too, particularly with the internet it's not hard to consume a full diet of media in the language of any large economically advanced countries these days.

Of course this is LiaS, so I realize I'm probably just threadjacking with those kind of comments :)

[heinz57]

*steps onto Latin teacher soapbox*

I would respectfully disagree that Latin can be learned from a book. I am sure there are a few people who have successfully taught themselves Latin without a teacher. However, from my experience, most people who try to teach themselves from a book end up hopelessly confused. There are two major ways that Latin is learned. I won't go into detail here unless anyone wants to know, but learning Latin either requires an incredibly intricate understanding of English grammar, OR a teacher who can lead students in a reading/comprehensible input method. There is no way, from what I see, that students of the SOTDRT can have the English grammar knowledge to teach themselves. To be frank, most students in public schools don't understand it. I spend so much time in class teaching about subjective vs. objective nouns [who vs. whom], indirect objects, the English subjunctive system [may, might, can, etc.], gerunds vs. gerundives... The list goes on and on, and that's all in English! A Latin teacher can teach all of that English grammar AND how to translate that knowledge into the Latin language.

With modern languages, there is less of an issue, because a) the grammar has simplified over time and b) the majority are not inflected (by that I mean, the nouns don't change form depending on their usage in the sentence). Languages tend to simplify over time, just as a way of becoming more accessible to the general public. Latin is no longer evolving, and so it remains fairly complex. Additionally, there is no new Latin being produced. All we have are these pieces of literature, which were preserved (in general) for their complexity. There are new French, Spanish, and German texts being produced all the time, with significantly lower levels of complexity. Students of modern languages can read children's books and simple newspaper articles, exposing them to the language passively and allowing them to acquire it much in the same way our children acquire English as their first language. Unless parents make an effort to actively speak Latin to their young children and to read to them in Latin, Latin must be acquired artificially-- and thus, with the help of a teacher.

tl;dr: Don't assume that, just because no one speaks Latin any more, it can be learned from a book and without a teacher. In most cases, the book-only approach will result in students who can recognize vocabulary and translate simple textbook sentences, but cannot access any of the ancient texts-- which is the whole reason for learning Latin in the first place!

*gets off Latin teacher soapbox*

Good points. I guess the difficulty varies greatly depending on your starting point - if your mother tongue is English I can see how learning Latin can be really challenging, because the vocabulary and the grammatical structure as so much removed.

Some might find it easier though: the grammar of slavic languages is very similar to Latin - for example Polish is inflected, with 7 cases (nom, gen, dat, acc, instrumental, loc, voc) and has grammatical genres. Speakers of Romance languages will find it easier as well.

Also, I noticed that grammar isn't taught much in English-speaking countries, whereas it would be an important part of the curriculum in my school. But whenever someone asks for ex. "why is it written *Kanady* if the country is called *Kanada*?" and I say because it's genitive, I'm met with a blank stare.

*my turn to get off the language geek soapbox :roll:

[rhododactylos]

Good points. I guess the difficulty varies greatly depending on your starting point - if your mother tongue is English I can see how learning Latin can be really challenging, because the vocabulary and the grammatical structure as so much removed.

Some might find it easier though: the grammar of slavic languages is very similar to Latin - for example Polish is inflected, with 7 cases (nom, gen, dat, acc, instrumental, loc, voc) and has grammatical genres. Speakers of Romance languages will find it easier as well.

Also, I noticed that grammar isn't taught much in English-speaking countries, whereas it would be an important part of the curriculum in my school. But whenever someone asks for ex. "why is it written *Kanady* if the country is called *Kanada*?" and I say because it's genitive, I'm met with a blank stare.

*my turn to get off the language geek soapbox :roll:

Very true. I should have restricted my observations to English-speaking countries, largely because of the bolded.

Though not a Catholic, I teach Latin at a Catholic school, using a textbook that is a favorite among homeschoolers. The support forums for this textbook are full of parents who never learned Latin, trying to teach their children from this book which really requires a teacher-- it even says so in the books! I always worry that these kids aren't really getting the full benefits of learning Latin-- or any other language, for that matter! I loved what BlueChair said above, that these children are being deprived of the experience of learning.

Any foreign language, but IMHO especially Latin (pardon my bias!), gives people such a better grasp of their first language and improves their problem-solving and critical thinking skills. However, just learning the vocabulary and forms--which seems to be what happens at the SOTDRT-- doesn't provide those benefits.

[Triplet3]

tl;dr: Don't assume that, just because no one speaks Latin any more, it can be learned from a book and without a teacher. In most cases, the book-only approach will result in students who can recognize vocabulary and translate simple textbook sentences, but cannot access any of the ancient texts-- which is the whole reason for learning Latin in the first place!

Unless you're an archivist or historical researcher learning medieval Latin in order to translate/transcribe historical records... (Sorry, nit-picking I know, but as an archivist myself I can't help it... :p)

[rhododactylos]

Unless you're an archivist or historical researcher learning medieval Latin in order to translate/transcribe historical records... (Sorry, nit-picking I know, but as an archivist myself I can't help it... :p)

Touche! I oversimplified. :) I'm writing my Master's thesis on sexual overtones (well, specifically erotic Ovidian intertextuality) in 12th century sacred writings, so I definitely don't discount medieval Latin! :D In a very roundabout way, my work with medieval Latin on this topic led me to FJ, so shame on me for not including it! Mea culpa!

If I remember correctly from a previous post, you're from around London. Were you by chance at the University of London's Summer Paleography School this year? Because I was, and I *think* I remember there being an archivist who was a triplet in one of my course... :)

[heinz57]

...

Any foreign language, but IMHO especially Latin (pardon my bias!), gives people such a better grasp of their first language and improves their problem-solving and critical thinking skills.

I completely agree. And it gives you a very different perspective on what a language is, and how your language shapes your worldview.

Here is an example from my Hebrew class: One guy was deeply shocked to discover that "moon" is masculine in Hebrew. I didn't find it weird, because I speak several languages and "moon" happens to be feminine in French, masculine in Polish, genderless in English... But for that guy who only speaks French up to this moment it wasn't "the word *moon* is feminine in French", it was "the Moon is feminine". By Nature. And suddenly something that was an absolute truth in his worldview became relative... It may seem anecdotical but I think learning languages shifts and challenges some certitudes in a really powerful way.

[However, just learning the vocabulary and forms--which seems to be what happens at the SOTDRT-- doesn't provide those benefits.

I see learning a foreign language as solving a very intricate puzzle or equation, with the added difficulty that no language is completely logical. But when you manage to build a sentence using a set of those blocks, and somebody understands you, it's such a thrill! When I start a new textbook I love to look at the advanced texts at the end of the book and understand nothing. And then a few months later I get to that part and understand it, and remember the awe I felt when I saw it first. But I really do think you need a teacher to guide you. Your Latin textbook should have a big red, gleaming "don't try this at home" printed all over :lol:

[rhododactylos]

It may seem anecdotical but I think learning languages shifts and challenges some certitudes in a really powerful way.

QFT.

[hagia sophia]

The only thing I can see teaching myself is History and some sciences that catch my eyes, but everything else hell no.

So very true. I "graduated" from an A.C.E. Christian school after transferring in during 10th grade. (In quotes because after I graduated I found out it wasn't accredited and I had to take the G.E.D. exam to get into college.)

Anyhow, math is one of the things you cannot teach yourself. Or at least I could not teach myself geometry from those paces (workbooks) and after a year had only completed three.

I ended up taking business math (which included how to make change - for real) and I think Algebra 1, which I had already had in 9th grade in the public school.

[freejoytoo]

*steps onto Latin teacher soapbox*

I would respectfully disagree that Latin can be learned from a book. I am sure there are a few people who have successfully taught themselves Latin without a teacher. However, from my experience, most people who try to teach themselves from a book end up hopelessly confused. There are two major ways that Latin is learned. I won't go into detail here unless anyone wants to know, but learning Latin either requires an incredibly intricate understanding of English grammar, OR a teacher who can lead students in a reading/comprehensible input method. There is no way, from what I see, that students of the SOTDRT can have the English grammar knowledge to teach themselves. To be frank, most students in public schools don't understand it. I spend so much time in class teaching about subjective vs. objective nouns [who vs. whom], indirect objects, the English subjunctive system [may, might, can, etc.], gerunds vs. gerundives... The list goes on and on, and that's all in English! A Latin teacher can teach all of that English grammar AND how to translate that knowledge into the Latin language.

With modern languages, there is less of an issue, because a) the grammar has simplified over time and b) the majority are not inflected (by that I mean, the nouns don't change form depending on their usage in the sentence). Languages tend to simplify over time, just as a way of becoming more accessible to the general public. Latin is no longer evolving, and so it remains fairly complex. Additionally, there is no new Latin being produced. All we have are these pieces of literature, which were preserved (in general) for their complexity. There are new French, Spanish, and German texts being produced all the time, with significantly lower levels of complexity. Students of modern languages can read children's books and simple newspaper articles, exposing them to the language passively and allowing them to acquire it much in the same way our children acquire English as their first language. Unless parents make an effort to actively speak Latin to their young children and to read to them in Latin, Latin must be acquired artificially-- and thus, with the help of a teacher.

tl;dr: Don't assume that, just because no one speaks Latin any more, it can be learned from a book and without a teacher. In most cases, the book-only approach will result in students who can recognize vocabulary and translate simple textbook sentences, but cannot access any of the ancient texts-- which is the whole reason for learning Latin in the first place!

*gets off Latin teacher soapbox*

QFT!

[crazytalk]

Funny, I just read something that Zsu Zsu wrote in one of her Q&A posts, where a commenter asked her how she felt about college for her kids. She replied with something about how she has nothing against higher learning per se, but that she doesn't agree with actual college / university because why should you have to pay for something (education) that you can get yourself for free. Which I find to be crazy, on so many levels. She is leaving her children to be so unprepared for the world at large, it's ridiculous. (I know, that's the point.) I remember lectures and sessions in college where we all just sat together - professor, students, and TA's - and dissected a poem or an historical event and talked about what it meant or the repercussions of it. That level of discourse was essential for learning, in my opinion.

(Plus then she also said that in college you have to take required courses on things like "diversity" - she even put the word in quotes. I never had to take a class in diversity .... well not until I started a job and had to take that and other non-discrimination and compliance sessions. She's a moron.)

[Deleted05]

Hmm, good point.

But how many non-English-speaking non-Christians are there in southern Texas?

Mexican Catholics?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I remember lectures and sessions in college where we all just sat together - professor, students, and TA's - and dissected a poem or an historical event and talked about what it meant or the repercussions of it. That level of discourse was essential for learning, in my opinion.

That type of specifically critical discussion is the entire POINT of many humanities classes. The actual topic of the conversation is only small part of what the class is about - learning how to dissect things and ask critical questions is huge.

My husband has taught freshman history a few times, and he says the hardest part is taking people fresh out of high school who are used to only learning things as received wisdom, there is One Truth and the teacher will tell us what it is, and getting them to start taking things apart and looking for the "meta." Given the way the SOTDRT is explicitly set up to reinforce this "there is one real truth, we need to only learn what it is" simplistic thinking in many cases, I'm sure it'd be even harder for them.

But even regular high school students, so many of them just do NOT understand why class participation is important, even when the goals are spelled out for them. Yes, you have to get into arguments here and back up what you say. That's the whole reason for the class. So many people just want to memorize dates and show up for a test and that's it - and their grades obviously suffer.

[heinz57]

Mexican Catholics?

Aaaah, right. I keep forgetting Catholics are not Christian :roll:

[Triplet3]

Touche! I oversimplified. :) I'm writing my Master's thesis on sexual overtones (well, specifically erotic Ovidian intertextuality) in 12th century sacred writings, so I definitely don't discount medieval Latin! :D In a very roundabout way, my work with medieval Latin on this topic led me to FJ, so shame on me for not including it! Mea culpa!

If I remember correctly from a previous post, you're from around London. Were you by chance at the University of London's Summer Paleography School this year? Because I was, and I *think* I remember there being an archivist who was a triplet in one of my course... :)

Haha, yes I'm from near London but it wasn't me at the Summer Palaeography School I'm afraid. Funny to think there's another archivist triplet out there (I doubt there's many of us!) Your thesis sounds really interesting :)