Is this proper English homework?

[optimist66]

My DS1 who is in Year 3 completed his "English" home work, last night. Sorry, it's not called "English" - it's called "Literacy". He is at a state school.

His home work was about the use of "onomatopoeia" words. These are the use of words whose sound suggests the sense of what is happening. DS1 had to design an advertisement for a cereal.

Am I wrong in thinking that this is a weak and namby pamby way of discussing use of sounds. Where is the greating traditional way of discussing the rules of Grammar - complemented by an indepth building of Vcabulary and Comprehension skills.

He is on the top table, and a level 3b

Am I expecting too much, as I always see homework of weak substance given to him?

I would bet that the teacher doesn't agree with homework either-has to set it -and so makes it fun.
The point was not to do tedious exercises at home but, having being taught the concept at school,see if they can apply it.
Surely the point of any language teaching is having the ability to use it correctly?

Come on, this is a wind up, surely?

"namby pamby"
"homework of weak substance"
"apologise if I cannot track subsequent postings"
"Debate with me, using the richness of our beautiful English language."

Very good

If you are for real, why didn't you choose a more academic school if that suits your child better?

I teach university students in English. Their grammar often isn't great, but they can learn to correct that. I would absolutely love it if they'd learn to be sensitive to the sound of words, and learn to think imaginatively about the potential of sounds.

I think it's a great task.

Also teaching English to university level students (NNSs though) and would love it if they could understand the concept of onomatopoeia and apply it. It's all part of the richness of the English language. I was trying to explain how and why language can be evocative the other day and was met with blank faces.

Would you have approved if he hadn't been give 'an advertisement for a cereal' as the brief?

I'm glad that it wasn't just me-I thought it an excellent homework exercise. I don't agree with homework for year 3, but if you have to have it I think it ought to be to apply a concept.The poster will soon work out whether they will really understand it.It is quite possible to fill in answers from 'First Aid in English' and not understand it.
(I know this because I have a logical mind that loves an exercise-I could get 100% for musical theory exercises without having a clue what most of it meant-I could find an augmented 7th with ease-but to this day I haven't a clue how or why you would use it!)

Fwiw I think this sounds like really good homework, work to be done at home that engages the child and encourages him to put into context what he's been learning about in class.

But I also agree that the standards of literacy are very poor in this country. I was looking through DD's literacy book (y4) and she had switched between using 'could of' and 'could have' and this wasn't picked up by the teacher. I would prefer that this kind of mistake was corrected tbh.

I think it sounds great - and sounds like the school is encouraging the teaching of literacy during all the subjects.

DS's schools are very clear that Literacy isn't just done in the literacy lessons. It's used throughout the curriculum. So DS1's latest Literacy homework was to find out about Tudors - War and Weaponary........for his next History lesson

It puts language where it should be. Everywhere!

I wouldn't mind it...as long as it was in the context of some formal learning of the language.

I feel that when we learn anything in life there needs to be a mixture of fun stuff and the boring nitty gritty.
Get the balance right and learning will happen.
Too much nitty gritty turns people off.

However, I do think there is too much emphasis placed on everything being fun, fun, fun. Teachers are expected to be stand up comedians these days. Heaven forfend the little darlings should have to do some hard graft.

presumably though if he's been told to use onomatopoeia then it's already been explained to them in class? Certainly when DS1 gets homework along these lines they've already had the concept explained to them in class and the homework is about them putting it into different contexts.

Firstly, my apologies for the poor typos and grammar. I will use Microsoft Word before I post other messages.

My post was not meant to be provocative, yet it has certainly yielded interesting responses. It is strange that most people I speak to agree with me, however, here there is a different consensus.
To one poster, I am sorry I cannot recall your ID (my apologies). If money was not an option then I would opt for the Private School. That being said, DS is at state school and I am allowed to express an opinion.

SATs content has been dumbed down to such an extent that our children are no academic match for their age equivalents from the Tiger economies, Australia and Finland (all highly regarded in the recent PISA study). In the global economy education matters and the substance in SATS Literacy and Numeracy falls short of what we should expect.

Again, this is my opinion and this shapes how I view my children?s education.

If you don't think that playing with language is useful, I'm going to guess you didn't study English to a particularly advanced level.

MainlyMaynie

I guess you are right.

I only attained a Grade B for my English language O'Level, in the early 80?s.

I should have read more. That being said you are right I did not study English to an Advanced Level. I focussed on Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics.

PS. Has only an English Teacher/Professional the right to express an opinion about the National Literacy Strategy? Hmmmmn!!!

There's no harm in playing with language; but there's also a lot of benefit to learning its rules before you start.

I learned the hard way when I got (from a not very academic school) to (a very academic) university that I needed to do hard graft and learn the basics of my subject before trying to be 'creative' and 'original' in my essays meant anything other than 'pretentious and insubstantial'. I've since been very grateful for that lesson.

Sometimes getting to grips with a body of knowledge is hard work. What's wrong with being honest about that?

Baroque one would hope so, yes. And that the explanation and class work was in sufficient depth.

In those circumstances a fun task to consolidate is no bad thing. DD is currently practising a skit or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire in French, which I don't mind at all.
But it is in the context of some very good teaching and other homeworks that involve learning vocab, conjugation etc.

What I don't like is the idea that school must be all singing all dancing. That there must be nothing that is a bit boring.
Nearly all task and achievemnets involve some broing bits no? They're often essential to deeper success.

but word - that works on the on the assumption that all chidlren will find the "fun" stuff.........fun, and the boring stuff "boring".

And the problem is whether a child finds a "fun" thing boring, or the "boring" thing boring is that quite often if a child is bored they will switch off and learn nothing.

I found History incredibly boring at school, it was dull and I switched off and as a consequence my knowledge of history is absolutely shite. . Had we done some of what (I) viewed as "fun" things in history it may have engaged me enough to pay a bit more attention in the "boring" bits (and if not that I may actually have learned something from the fun bits).

"It is strange that most people I speak to agree with me, however, here there is a different consensus."

I would agree with you in RL. You are scary

(goes back to writing undergraduate textbook on linguistic processing...)

Huge, onomatopoeia isn't any less part of the 'body of knowledge' you need for English Lit than grammar.

OP, I've noticed scientists are often more precise in their use of language that literature students - scientists really appreciate the need to use precision, which is a good thing! But I think it's not the only thing, and that's the issue here.

Op this is presumably one of your dc's first introductions to the use of this technique. This will not be the one and only time this technique is taught to him in school. I assume the teacher is grounding the technique through a fun and creative activity. He is far more likely to remember it from this exercise than he is from a boring repetitive task which encourages his brain to switch off.
Surely you want to foster a love of English and reading? If your dc associates English and literacy with being bored out of his mind he will not develop a love for the subject. If it is exciting and stimulating he will be keen to learn more.
Learning doesn't have to be dull and repetitive. It can be fun and enticing.

I think this particular task sounds fine. I think it would be of particular benefit to boys (who I believe often tend to learn in a more hands on way). I do however think there should be a lot more emphasis on the basics at an earlier age. These are the tools children will then use to go on and learn other subjects.
I wonder if this is the difference between state and private?

Baroque that is true of course.

But I'm making a, perhaps unfair, generalisation that most DC would find outting on witty plays, designing posters etc, quite fun...learning lists of vocab, reading set texts (both essential) less so.

As I say, I'm all for balance.

optimist - I do take your point actually about the global position of our DC.

I do think that here in the uk we can be far too parochial and complacent.
We seem very very slow to recognise the changing world around us.

DH tells me that at least 50% of the graduates applying for positions in his firm, now come from overseas.

The competition is stiff and increasing.

LRD makes a very good point.

Some children do enjoy the "boring" stuff.

And the problem is that if you leave the "fun" stuff until after the child has learned the basics...........well it could be too late to engange the child that is totally switched off and learning nothing.

My DS1 "needs" to see things "in context" to learn them. He can't deal in his head with random concepts - although if you give him a list of vocab to learn, or a list of examples of onomatopoeia to sort out he could do it. He just can't carry across that abstract concept into different contexts. If he doesn't learn it as he learns the concept then he's just totally and utterly clueless.

He needs to learn the basics along side of how they are used in a wider context - it's blatantly obvious when I look at the "gaps" in his knowledge across all subjects where they have learned something without giving them the opportunity to immediately try out what they have learned in "fun" activities, and where they haven't.

DS2 on the other hand can easily apply concepts to differing contexts without any issues. He's very adept at learning abstract concepts and applying them in any given situation. Though he would probably enjoy more of how we were taught at school

However he isn't held back by the fact that he has to stop and do fun stuff in between the rote type learning. Whereas DS1 is held by back rote type learning and then fun stuff once basics are "mastered" (as he can't master the basics without the fun stuff).

I'm extremely glad that DS1 has the opportunity to learn like he does - with the "creative" curriculum as I'm in no doubt if he'd been at school when I was he would have been left far far behind by this stage in his schooling.

DS2 would continue to do well in any teaching/curriculum environment so it makes little odds for him.

LRD Fair enough.

But in the grand scheme of things, I'd argue that it's more important for life as a whole to get a solid grounding in grammar and spelling at school than knowing the correct word for words like 'crack' 'crunch' and 'squelch' is 'onomatopoeic'.

In the event that kids are being taught largely 'fun' aspects of knowledge about language rather than getting a solid grasp of the basics, then there's something wrong.

I just don't understand this idea that onomatopoeia is any less a 'basic' than spelling and grammar etc. They are teaching the kids about the whole range of structures that exist within language. It is like learning about rhyme and alliteration.

Obviously if this was ALL that they were learning about then there would be a problem, but the OP doesn't seem to suggest that this is the case.

FWIW I went to school overseas and had a very 'traditional' edituation and I remember being set very similar exercises by my evil witch of an English teacher.

obviously typing was not on the curriculum