So I was sitting in the bedroom changing Gabe's diaper when I heard the front door open and Ken come in.
Me, to Gabe: "Who is that? Who came in? Is it Santa Clause?"
Gabe: "Nooo."
Me: "Is it a car?"
Gabe: "Nooo."
Me: "Who is it?"
Gabe: "Gog."
Me: "God?"
Gabe: "Yeah."
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
OMSI Update
So I'm going to have to think about how to do this whole OMSI thing. I bought the kids some little science journals with drawing and writing space to bring with us. What I would really love to be able to do is to have them spend a long time on one particular activity at the science museum, thinking about the particular exhibit and drawing and writing whatever might be relevant. For example, we spent a little time at the fingerprint station; I would have loved to have them each be able to examine every one of their fingers, drawing (in their journals) what the fingerprint looked like and matching it to one of the labelled patterns and writing the pattern names down and so on. But it just doesn't work. There's two main problems:
1) The kids lose interest very quickly. They want to spend about 10 seconds doing something and then go on to the next exhibit. And I can't expect them to sit around doing nothing while waiting for their siblings to have a turn doing it.
2) Other people are waiting. OMSI always has a steady supply of people. It takes some time to, say, take a little photograph of all ten fingers of four different kids and match those up to the patterns. If we spend all that time on one thing, no one else will be able to look at it.
So, I can keep bringing them, let them wander from one exhibit to the next; they'll have fun, but they won't learn anything. Or, I can try to force them to stay at one exhibit until they have done it properly, which will make them cranky and piss off any other visitors who wanted to use that station too. Anyone have any thoughts on resolving this dilemma?
1) The kids lose interest very quickly. They want to spend about 10 seconds doing something and then go on to the next exhibit. And I can't expect them to sit around doing nothing while waiting for their siblings to have a turn doing it.
2) Other people are waiting. OMSI always has a steady supply of people. It takes some time to, say, take a little photograph of all ten fingers of four different kids and match those up to the patterns. If we spend all that time on one thing, no one else will be able to look at it.
So, I can keep bringing them, let them wander from one exhibit to the next; they'll have fun, but they won't learn anything. Or, I can try to force them to stay at one exhibit until they have done it properly, which will make them cranky and piss off any other visitors who wanted to use that station too. Anyone have any thoughts on resolving this dilemma?
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Pinochle
So I decided to start teaching Kyrie and Elijah to play pinochle. I have so many fond memories of playing pinochle with my grandpa, uncles, etc. that I really wanted to be able to play with them. My dad might be the only one who enjoys hearing all these details about how I taught the kids pinochle, but here goes.
Pinochle is a crazy complex game, and people always seem to be intimidated to learn it, so I figured I would start out simple with the kids and try to build it up slowly. Usually attempts to teach people the game go through it chronologically: explain bidding, and then explain meld, and then explain playing hands (winning tricks). I realized in thinking about it these last two days that the reasons these explanations usually get all tangled up is because the chronological explanation is really backwards. The bidding is one of the most complex parts of the game, because it requires a knowledge of both melding and playing hands. The place to really start is with playing the hand. Once they understand that, then they can be taught to meld and then they will be better able to understand why you might want to pass certain cards before others (or lay down, in three-handed); only after they understand all that might they be able to understand how much their hand is worth and bid on it.
So I started today just by familiarizing them with the deck, making sure they knew all four suit names, showing them how each suit has the same set of cards and how each card is doubled, showing them the order those cards go in (A 10 K Q J 9) and such. Then I told Kyrie to deal the cards out to each of us until the whole deck was done, while I went and switched the laundry loads. When I came back, Kyrie thought something was off with the cards, so we each counted ours. I had 17, Kyrie said she had 15, so I let her pick one out of mine to even it up.
We laid all of our cards down on the table, and I showed how to put the cards in order to make it easier to see what you have. (I am aware that highly skilled players sometimes avoid sorting their cards in order to avoid giving away clues to their hands. I do not believe my 6 and 7 year olds need to worry about that anytime soon.) I realized that I had forgotten to pick a trump suit, so I closed my eyes and put my finger down in a random spot on my own laid-out cards. So trump was spades.
We played the hand out, with me explaining about trumping and sluffing (although I forgot to tell them it was called sluffing) as it came up, and trying to ingrain in them the concept of playing your lowest card when you know you're going to lose a trick. I told them briefly about aces, tens, and kings being counters worth one point each, but I figured we would cover that mostly when we got to the end of the hand and added up all the counters.
However, that was not to be. Kyrie probably would have won; she took quite a few more tricks than Elijah or I did. But as we got down to it, I suddenly noticed that Kyrie had four cards to Elijah's two (and my three). Apparently I shouldn't rely on the kids to count their own cards in the first place. So I declared a misdeal and we gathered up all the cards. This might have been fortunate; if Elijah loses his first round of playing pinochle, he will probably decide he doesn't like it and not want to play again.
I dealt us out another hand (remembering to turn a card over to decide trump this time, since we weren't bidding). We were almost all done laying our cards out in order when Gabe spilled water on the table. About 5 of the cards were soaked, so we had to stop the game so I could lay them out to dry. And there you have it. Maybe next week we will make another go at it and see if we can finish a couple hands.
Pinochle is a crazy complex game, and people always seem to be intimidated to learn it, so I figured I would start out simple with the kids and try to build it up slowly. Usually attempts to teach people the game go through it chronologically: explain bidding, and then explain meld, and then explain playing hands (winning tricks). I realized in thinking about it these last two days that the reasons these explanations usually get all tangled up is because the chronological explanation is really backwards. The bidding is one of the most complex parts of the game, because it requires a knowledge of both melding and playing hands. The place to really start is with playing the hand. Once they understand that, then they can be taught to meld and then they will be better able to understand why you might want to pass certain cards before others (or lay down, in three-handed); only after they understand all that might they be able to understand how much their hand is worth and bid on it.
So I started today just by familiarizing them with the deck, making sure they knew all four suit names, showing them how each suit has the same set of cards and how each card is doubled, showing them the order those cards go in (A 10 K Q J 9) and such. Then I told Kyrie to deal the cards out to each of us until the whole deck was done, while I went and switched the laundry loads. When I came back, Kyrie thought something was off with the cards, so we each counted ours. I had 17, Kyrie said she had 15, so I let her pick one out of mine to even it up.
We laid all of our cards down on the table, and I showed how to put the cards in order to make it easier to see what you have. (I am aware that highly skilled players sometimes avoid sorting their cards in order to avoid giving away clues to their hands. I do not believe my 6 and 7 year olds need to worry about that anytime soon.) I realized that I had forgotten to pick a trump suit, so I closed my eyes and put my finger down in a random spot on my own laid-out cards. So trump was spades.
We played the hand out, with me explaining about trumping and sluffing (although I forgot to tell them it was called sluffing) as it came up, and trying to ingrain in them the concept of playing your lowest card when you know you're going to lose a trick. I told them briefly about aces, tens, and kings being counters worth one point each, but I figured we would cover that mostly when we got to the end of the hand and added up all the counters.
However, that was not to be. Kyrie probably would have won; she took quite a few more tricks than Elijah or I did. But as we got down to it, I suddenly noticed that Kyrie had four cards to Elijah's two (and my three). Apparently I shouldn't rely on the kids to count their own cards in the first place. So I declared a misdeal and we gathered up all the cards. This might have been fortunate; if Elijah loses his first round of playing pinochle, he will probably decide he doesn't like it and not want to play again.
I dealt us out another hand (remembering to turn a card over to decide trump this time, since we weren't bidding). We were almost all done laying our cards out in order when Gabe spilled water on the table. About 5 of the cards were soaked, so we had to stop the game so I could lay them out to dry. And there you have it. Maybe next week we will make another go at it and see if we can finish a couple hands.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Boy's Dream
Elijah: "I had a wonderful dream last night. I still remember it."
Me: "What happened?"
Elijah: "First we were playing. Then something was plugged in, and we had to run outside before our house blew up because there was a bomb in it. And then all the other houses blew up because they all had bombs in them. And we ran and ran and finally we found one house that didn't have any bombs in it. And then a flying mitten came along and I jumped on it and I flew. I flew up to outer space. And you know why I liked being in outer space?"
Me: "Why?"
Elijah: "Because I got to kill bad guys."
He is SUCH a boy.
Me: "What happened?"
Elijah: "First we were playing. Then something was plugged in, and we had to run outside before our house blew up because there was a bomb in it. And then all the other houses blew up because they all had bombs in them. And we ran and ran and finally we found one house that didn't have any bombs in it. And then a flying mitten came along and I jumped on it and I flew. I flew up to outer space. And you know why I liked being in outer space?"
Me: "Why?"
Elijah: "Because I got to kill bad guys."
He is SUCH a boy.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
How Should the Digital Age affect Tests?
No, I'm not talking about taking tests digitally. I'm talking about the questions that get asked on tests.
So Kyrie was doing quite well on that test I gave her the other day, until she got to the part that gave an excerpt and asked it if was from a newspaper, an atlas, an encyclopedia, or a dictionary. This was followed by more questions about the four of these things. Kyrie didn't know what any of them were except a dictionary. So we had a little talk about it and I explained how they all worked, and I think she gets it ok now. But as I was thinking about it, it occurred to me that "dictionary" might actually be the only one of those words I care about her knowing.
There's lots of talk about how newspapers are slowly going the way of dinosaurs, because people are turning more and more to getting their news online. And who needs an atlas when you have Google Earth on your iPad and a GPS in the car? Likewise, actual physical encyclopedias are being replaced by Wikipedia. Dictionaries are the only one whose digital replacement (dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com, dictionary apps) actually get called by the same name as their physical counterparts.
So I'm sitting here thinking that these questions really shouldn't be on kids' tests anymore. These words will be as irrelevant to their lives as 8-track tapes are to mine, as irrelevant as the horse and buggy is to pretty much everyone now alive. (Which is not to say that they will disappear completely.... the horse and buggy are still around as a quaint entertainment. 8-track tapes are too, I think; encyclopedias may do likewise.)
So Kyrie was doing quite well on that test I gave her the other day, until she got to the part that gave an excerpt and asked it if was from a newspaper, an atlas, an encyclopedia, or a dictionary. This was followed by more questions about the four of these things. Kyrie didn't know what any of them were except a dictionary. So we had a little talk about it and I explained how they all worked, and I think she gets it ok now. But as I was thinking about it, it occurred to me that "dictionary" might actually be the only one of those words I care about her knowing.
There's lots of talk about how newspapers are slowly going the way of dinosaurs, because people are turning more and more to getting their news online. And who needs an atlas when you have Google Earth on your iPad and a GPS in the car? Likewise, actual physical encyclopedias are being replaced by Wikipedia. Dictionaries are the only one whose digital replacement (dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com, dictionary apps) actually get called by the same name as their physical counterparts.
So I'm sitting here thinking that these questions really shouldn't be on kids' tests anymore. These words will be as irrelevant to their lives as 8-track tapes are to mine, as irrelevant as the horse and buggy is to pretty much everyone now alive. (Which is not to say that they will disappear completely.... the horse and buggy are still around as a quaint entertainment. 8-track tapes are too, I think; encyclopedias may do likewise.)
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Ken's Latest Insallment of "Things I Never Thought I'd Hear"
Kyrie: "Bake my kitty! Bake my kitty!"
(It was a clay kitty.)
(It was a clay kitty.)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Comparison of Online Book Ordering
There's at least five books that I would like to buy actual copies of, so I decided to compare various sites that I could order the books from online. These are the results.
Amazon and Barnes & Noble offer free shipping on orders over $25; Powell's offers free shipping on orders over $50. Borders offers free shipping if you sign up for some program that will eventually charge your credit card. Borders.com is the clearest loser in all this. Powell's beats out Amazon by 7 cents, and I like that they are local. On the other hand, three of those books would be used from Powell's instead of new from Amazon. (On the gripping hand, one of those would be hardcover from Powell's instead of paperback, and all the rest would be "trade paper" which according to Wikipedia is considered slightly better than paperback.)
So Powell's it is.
| Books/Seller | Amazon | BarnesNoble | Borders | Powell's |
| What's Math Got to Do with It? | $10.88 | $11.29 | $16.00 | $10.95 |
| Real Food | $10.87 | $10.97 | $15.99 | $10.95 |
| The War of Art | $10.15 | $10.15 | $12.95 | $12.95 |
| Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius | $13.60 | $17.95 | $19.95 | $13.95 |
| Waking the Dead | $10.87 | $11.51 | $15.99 | $7.50 |
| Subtotals | $56.37 | $61.87 | $80.88 | $56.30 |
Amazon and Barnes & Noble offer free shipping on orders over $25; Powell's offers free shipping on orders over $50. Borders offers free shipping if you sign up for some program that will eventually charge your credit card. Borders.com is the clearest loser in all this. Powell's beats out Amazon by 7 cents, and I like that they are local. On the other hand, three of those books would be used from Powell's instead of new from Amazon. (On the gripping hand, one of those would be hardcover from Powell's instead of paperback, and all the rest would be "trade paper" which according to Wikipedia is considered slightly better than paperback.)
So Powell's it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)