I know this is getting far afield, but I tend toward the “don’t lie to children” end of the spectrum, and I’m not always sure it’s helpful. A broad pattern that isn’t exact is often a lot more useful than an exact, much more complex pattern that you can’t fathom.
Today I was reviewing some phonics with students, including these rules:
-A “closed syllable,” that is, a syllable with one vowel followed by one or more consonants, usually has a short vowel sound.
-A “v-c-e syllable,” that is, a syllable with a vowel followed by a single consonant and an “e”, usually has a long vowel sound.
-An “open syllable,” that is, a syllable with one vowel and no consonants after it, usually has a long vowel sound.
But I couldn’t help myself. “Most closed syllables have a short vowel sound–most. And I can give you a v-c-e syllable example with a short vowel sound. Can anyone think of a word that’s an open syllable but not a short vowel sound?” I wrote the underlined words on the board.
My need to show them that the rules don’t always work has the potential to undercut their understanding of the tendency. Striking the correct balance is tricky.
This might be an entry point into “what’s a thing?” and decomposition. When you grasp a doorknob and pull, what’s really happening is your arm is pulling your hand which is pushing on the backside of the doorknob which is pulling the door towards you.
So which “thing” is the relevant thing? All of you, your arm, or your hand? The door or the knob?
Depending on which level of description is relevant, one can say “I pulled the door” or “my hand pushed the knob” or even “the knob pulled the door”. All are true and which is more useful depends on which level of detail matters for whatever we’re talking about.
Which also leads naturally into the idea that only very carefully asked questions have exactly one answer. Sloppy or lazy questions have many answers or may not even be reliably answerable at all. Some answers are more obvious than others, but to insist that only the most obvious answer is the answer is bad thinking.
Kids aren’t going to eat all that at one sitting, but they’ll grow into it.
Lordy. And people worry that the kids will have trouble with something as simple as Newtonian mechanics. The rulebook and book of exceptions we are filled up with just to learn to read and write makes classical physics look a walk in the park.
Not quite. Eccentric exercises involve pulling against a falling weight, like slowly lowering during a bench press or starting a bicep curl from the top.
I feel the need to bring this up because some people erroneously think a bench press works your back when you’re lowering the weight or a row works the chest when allowing the rope/weight/cable to shorten. Nope - both directions work the same muscle group.
This isn’t too far out of left field a comment, but it suggests itself since your post borders on other areas of cognition: is a doorway for entering or exiting?
[Shaolin Master]
Ahhh, weedhopper. You see complexity where there is none. There is no entering; there is no exiting. One merely moves from place to place. Wherever you go, there you are.
Simplify. Always simplify. But not too much. That is wisdom.
[/Shaolin Master]