Explain English Comp. please.

WandererReece wrote:

Spurgun wrote:So when we could be learning more, they tell us to sit down and stair at the desk for half an hour.

That's not how they do it in my area. Each class is about 50 minutes, and the teachers usually spend 40 minutes teaching.

Depends on the teacher, some of them like talking all the time (which IMO is better). Other tell us the basics and then give us papers to do. Our math and English teachers happen to be of the latter sort.

I was an above average student, and I have problems with that aspect of the system (or lack there of) as well, but IMO neither of the methods you describe are generally appropriate ways to teach, as both methods hamper above average students and outpace below average students.

My chemistry teacher used a system I liked. It was to assign every activity in the chapters you (each individual) were doing, to be due in 2 weeks. If you finished early, you take the test and move on (or repeat it,) and you get your new assignments. There was a minimum pace, but individual attention was given to the slower learners (the faster learners didn't generally need help) otherwise you advanced as fast as you were willing/able to.

Forum Pirate wrote:I was an above average student, and I have problems with that aspect of the system (or lack there of) as well, but IMO neither of the methods you describe are generally appropriate ways to teach, as both methods hamper above average students and outpace below average students.

My chemistry teacher used a system I liked. It was to assign every activity in the chapters you (each individual) were doing, to be due in 2 weeks. If you finished early, you take the test and move on (or repeat it,) and you get your new assignments. There was a minimum pace, but individual attention was given to the slower learners (the faster learners didn't generally need help) otherwise you advanced as fast as you were willing/able to.

I don't like spouting half-assed aphorisms and no substance, but... good teachers are few and far between; what's more important is that ALL teachers have influence over students regardless of their quality. Average performance of teachers, curriculum and teaching systems widely used are inadequate for the average student. That's cool you had a teacher like that, but that's probably not the norm. I fondly remember one of my teachers back in the day; the teacher taught a good pace, threw in a lot of personal experiences that went with the curriculum to really keep the students engaged. Few and far, man.

All this changes when you get out of HS; choosing teachers/courses/schools that you want. Things like ratemyprof gives you a measure of what to expect and serves as an ombudsman. The downside is it's abused by the students and teachers fearing such ratings make courses easier or become the students' b*tch. There's a lot more to be said and this is a dynamic topic.

Maybe it's just my experience and observation.

eeayess, try reading on your own; very few books I've read as part of formal schooling did much for me; the best ones I've read, I've read on my own.

Forum Pirate wrote:I was an above average student, and I have problems with that aspect of the system (or lack there of) as well, but IMO neither of the methods you describe are generally appropriate ways to teach, as both methods hamper above average students and outpace below average students.

My chemistry teacher used a system I liked. It was to assign every activity in the chapters you (each individual) were doing, to be due in 2 weeks. If you finished early, you take the test and move on (or repeat it,) and you get your new assignments. There was a minimum pace, but individual attention was given to the slower learners (the faster learners didn't generally need help) otherwise you advanced as fast as you were willing/able to.

I don't really like the other method either, but it's the better one of the two.

I have a question about the system you're talking about. What happened if you completed the whole book?

About 80% of both English and Maths courses are pretty much useless.The only reason to know most of the material is if you want to be a teacher.
It was a big mistake but I ended up dropping out in my last year.My school had some boring teachers,any half decent ones had left by then.Try learning physics and maths when your teacher drones on without ever really explaining anything.I had trouble learning those two subjects because my teachers were being switched constantly.Not to mention the fact that my class didn't even have a teacher for the junior course,we had a sub for an entire year who rarely showed up and never actually taught us anything when he was there.
I had pretty average grades for zero study for my junior certificate exams(I guess that's like middle school,you go to school for 3 years for it after primary school which is basically grade school).But yeah,for my leaving cert,before I dropped out,we got a new principle,my Irish teacher left and I got a giant *** for a replacement,new maths and physics teacher who was horrible at his job and I was put in an english class with all the bad eggs who were constantly yelling at the teacher.Kinda wish I had gone to a different school now. :|

@spur it didn't happen. It would have required several (2+) hours of chemistry homework every night of the week. It was a long book.

Then that method is very good.