On 24 Mar 2006 11:22:36 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, >Guess who <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>On 23 Mar 2006 11:33:53 -0500, email@example.com (Herman >>Rubin) wrote: > >>>Concepts and structure need to come EARLY, so the students >>>can know why, and not just how. > >>Not so; certainly not necessarily so, and far too sweeping a >>generalisation. You lose almost everyone if you pontificate. The >>young are generally not ready for theory simply due to the fact that >>they are very young, but might grasp it later when they have more >>detail to put to that theory. > >Do you mean you cannot teach grammatical structure to >someone who has not learned a language? Nonsense.
In what language to you teach it then?
>You do not understand concepts. They are NOT the same as >theory; one can learn the theory and have no understanding >of the concepts, and vice versa.
Don't be speculative about what I do or do not know. I *taught* concepts. I *argued* that is was lack of knowledge and understanding of concepts that made the difference, being not surprised even when my own daughter showed a decided lack of that knowledge in her studies in physics.