Seminary Scriptures vs. Common Core

[Guest]

Maybe I'm making a 'beautiful mind' connection where there is none.  But I was more disturbed by something than I should have been.

A while ago I heard that a trait of Common Core math was that "We're de-emphasizing the correct answer, and trying to encourage understanding the why behind the answer."  That sounds goofy to me.  We need to make sure they get the correct answer just as much as understanding how to get to the correct answer.  But that isn't what the emphasis is on.

Recently, I was just told that Seminary students are no longer being required to memorize the scripture list for the year.  They only need to give a paraphrase and an explanation of what it means.  Gee, where have I heard this before?

Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill?  I realize I may be biased because I'm both good at math and I tend to be able to memorize things faster than others.  But I feel like we're losing something when we no longer teach memorization.  YES!  Of course we need to understand the meaning behind the scripture.  I'd hope that goes without saying.  But someone is going to bring that up as a flaw in my thinking.  

Yes, we need to understand.  But, for myself, when I'm memorizing, I get more meaning and understanding through the memorization process.  I see every word in the specific order and it means something.  And what is the difference between memorizing the words of a scripture vs. memorizing a stock answer about what it means?

 

[Jane_Doe]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Maybe I'm making a 'beautiful mind' connection where there is none.  But I was more disturbed by something than I should have been.

(Brutally honest here) There's not much of a direct connection, other than the principle of understanding line upon line.  

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

A while ago I heard that a trait of Common Core math was that "We're de-emphasizing the correct answer, and trying to encourage understanding the why behind the answer."  That sounds goofy to me.  We need to make sure they get the correct answer just as much as understanding how to get to the correct answer.  But that isn't what the emphasis is on.

Line upon line: a person much first understand the foundational principle in something, such as math.  Once the foundational principle is learned (like what is carrying-the-one), then you can work on the exact correct answer.   Getting the correct answer without understanding the principle first is useless-- you're effectively just copying your neighbor's test at that point.

Note: this does not say that learning is complete without learning the foundation AND being about to arrive at the exact answer.

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Recently, I was just told that Seminary students are no longer being required to memorize the scripture list for the year.  They only need to give a paraphrase and an explanation of what it means.  Gee, where have I heard this before?

Again, line upon line: the principle is most important.  If a person does not understand the principle, being able to correctly recite a verse they don't understand is useless.

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, we need to understand.  But, for myself, when I'm memorizing, I get more meaning and understanding through the memorization process.  I see every word in the specific order and it means something. 

It sounds like memorization is your individual learning style, hence why it works so well for you.  Other learning styles it doesn't go over so well.  For example, I trip horribly on word orders when I'm reciting something, making memorization a painful process.  Not memorizing the exact word order of one verse frees me other that time-consuming-pain, so that I may then go do an in-depth study of 5 other different verses in the same time. 

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 And what is the difference between memorizing the words of a scripture vs. memorizing a stock answer about what it means?

If the answer of what it means is recited, then they have not learned the first principle.  Back to the teaching board!

 

(Re-reading this, I'm noticing that I again tripped on word order.  Making the choice to leave the errors in there to demonstrate my point)

Edited August 16, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[zil]

In the Gospel Library app, down the list you'll find "Seminaries and Institutes" (note, there are things there which are different from the last time I navigated via "Lessons", so go there).  You can then choose "Seminary", and at the bottom of that is "Doctrinal Mastery Core Document" - which is a document for the students.  Rather than taking the word of the Seminary student (who may or may not be correctly describing what's supposed to happen), I recommend you read this document (it's pretty short for an adult).

Then, if you want to know it from the teacher's side, go back up to "Seminary" and find "Doctrinal mastery New Testament Teacher Material" (I'm assuming this is the first course converted to the "Doctrinal Mastery" format since none of the others are...).  Here, I would recommend everything from the title page through the end of "Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge" - that should get you the theory behind this new method.

"Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge" was our July 5th-Sunday lesson from the bishopric, and our August 1st-Sunday lesson (which is how I know about it).  It seems like a pretty good approach and compatible with the "Teaching in the Savior's Way" methodology that's been used for teaching youth for a few years and which is starting to roll out for adult classes now.

FWIW.

PS: I stink at memorizing useful things, am fabulous at recalling items in my "Book of Totally Useless Information", and am very good at knowing where information is and pulling it up for review / recitation.  (And I was an exceptional student in HS and college.)  Just said to emphasize Jane's point that not everyone is good at memorizing.

That said, I didn't need common core to understand the principles underlying math, so I'm not sure the two approaches equate (though the two ideas or intents may).  In fact, I could not for the life of me understand why we needed theorems and proofs in geometry when what they set about to prove was nothing more or less than the obvious.  (I did not play well in geometry - it seemed like a waste of time.)

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, zil said:

,I could not for the life of me understand why we needed theorems and proofs in geometry when what they set about to prove was nothing more or less than the obvious. 

Proofs are not for "understanding", they are for "thinking".

Math is a laboratory for the process of thinking. It's a contolled environment where the steps/process can be monitored and evaluated. No, you'll never "use it" in real life, but without it, real life would quickly become slavery.

Lehi

Edited August 16, 2016 by LeSellers

[NeedleinA]

I spent two years on my mission without ever having memorized the discussions in Spanish. My little brain is just not good at that. I learned the ideas in the discussions and taught the best I could in my own words, best I could muster. I remember getting a kick out of hearing that the missionaries no longer are required to memorize the discussions. I appeared to have served 2 decades too early

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

... No, you'll never "use it" in real life, bit without it, real life would quickly become slavery.

We certainly should.  But most people don't.

I'd submit that people like Zil do actually use this process.  But there was something about the label of "math" or "geometry" that turned her off of it so she didn't realize that's what that was.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

17 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Proofs are not for "understanding", they are for "thinking".

Math is a laboratory for the process of thinking. It's a contolled environment where the steps/process can be monitored and evaluated. No, you'll never "use it" in real life, bit without it, real life would quickly become slavery.

Lehi

:) Yes, well, the 10th-grade me looked at it and said, "That big long proof can be summarized by "duh"."

Had the teacher been a good one*, I might have learned something of value.  Instead, she tried to "rote" into us things that were "duh" to me, and offered us nothing more.  (*She only taught remedial math, all the other students were remedial 12th graders, I was an honors 10th grader, a year ahead in math - I'm not sure where the 11th graders or my fellow 10th-grade honors students were - in some other class, obviously.)  Fortunately, my understanding was inherent (including what you describe in your second paragraph), and the next year I was back with my fellow honors students in pre-calc / trig, and loving it.  (Math has never been anything but "fun" to me - except that geometry class, which wasn't math or logic or any other good thing - not sure what to call it other than a waste.)

(It could be used as a poster experience for your dislike of government-run schools.  Fortunately, the rest of my experience was mostly positive, and I had parents to help and encourage and teach at home what didn't get proper coverage at school.)

[anatess2]

Okay, on Scripture Mastery...  I can't trust that I'll be able to memorize something if my life depended on it.  I do believe that memorization is a very useful skill - as bad my memorization skill is, I have memorized the color order of the rainbow using the ROYGBIV mnemonic and the Activity Series using a self-made jingle - Li K Ca Na Mg Al Zn... it is just a whole lot better to be able to talk to somebody about some gospel principle and instead of saying "somewhere in scripture it says <paraphrase what it means>", we say "in D&C 9:8-9 it says <recite the verse>"...  to support your discussion.

But Common Core does not tell you HOW to teach the standard.  It simply tells you what the standard is and that it needs to somehow be tested.  So, there's really no correlation between Common Core and Seminary.  My problem with Common Core is not the standard - I am a supporter of a standard.  My problem with Common Core is the centralization of authority.  I do not support the Feds requiring the States to adhere to the standard.  Rather, I prefer that a State use adherence to the standard as a "this is why our State is really awesome and y'all should move here" metric.  As it stands right now - confusion abounds because administrators just want to pass the test - they have no clue why the standard exists, they have no clue how to achieve adherence to the standards, and they have no clue how to teach it... yet, they are required to meet it.  The students suffer.

[cdowis]

I am confident that the church studied the issue carefully before putting this policy into place.  They may have discovered that memorization of scriptures among today's youth was a roadblock, and just understanding the scripture meaning was more useful.

Many years ago, my son decided not to go on a mission, and one of his excuses was that he could not memorize the discussions, which was a requirement at that time.  This was before the "Teach My Gospel" program, and this new policy is an extension of that practice.

"Read, Explain, Understand".

[Anddenex]

On 8/16/2016 at 10:09 AM, Carborendum said:

Maybe I'm making a 'beautiful mind' connection where there is none.  But I was more disturbed by something than I should have been.

A while ago I heard that a trait of Common Core math was that "We're de-emphasizing the correct answer, and trying to encourage understanding the why behind the answer."  That sounds goofy to me.  We need to make sure they get the correct answer just as much as understanding how to get to the correct answer.  But that isn't what the emphasis is on.

Recently, I was just told that Seminary students are no longer being required to memorize the scripture list for the year.  They only need to give a paraphrase and an explanation of what it means.  Gee, where have I heard this before?

Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill?  I realize I may be biased because I'm both good at math and I tend to be able to memorize things faster than others.  But I feel like we're losing something when we no longer teach memorization.  YES!  Of course we need to understand the meaning behind the scripture.  I'd hope that goes without saying.  But someone is going to bring that up as a flaw in my thinking.  

Yes, we need to understand.  But, for myself, when I'm memorizing, I get more meaning and understanding through the memorization process.  I see every word in the specific order and it means something.  And what is the difference between memorizing the words of a scripture vs. memorizing a stock answer about what it means?

 

I apologize if what I say has already been said and am repeating others (I didn't take the time to read comments just your thoughts). With my oldest in seminary now, we began to memorize scripture and I asked if they memorize the scripture and he said, "No, we memorize a phrase with an emphasis on the learning the meaning of the verse. The doctrine."

I agree, I learn more through memorization then trying to understand the verse alone. On my mission I memorized a scripture a day for a year, and I loved it when the spirit would take me on a tour of scriptures I had memorized providing deeper understanding of the scriptures I memorized, and if I had not memorized them I would not have been able to move so easily with the spirit guiding my learning.

I think it would be nice if seminary focused on memorization; however, I believe the responsibility is upon us as parents to make sure our kids are memorizing scriptures...not that you don't know this...just highlighting my thoughts when my son told me this. So, as a family, we ponderize (or try to consistently) scriptures from the seminary mastery lists each night with the family, and the Articles of Faith.

[Just_A_Guy]

I remember my seminary teachers trying to help us memorize scriptures, but I don't remember ever passing them off verbatim--I'm terrible at that sort of thing and I have huge respect for those who have been able to train their minds in that way.  I do remember that, if the scripture was read aloud, we had to be able to find it; and I did pretty well at that.

I think it's worth noting that seminary isn't about imparting knowledge in an academic sense; it's about giving students a general (and frankly, quite superficial) background in the scriptures while cultivating their spirituality and giving them the tools they will need to find the answers they need when they need them and to independently undertake a more serious study of the scriptures later on in life.

As for common core, I doubt that as a curriculum it's objectively worse than the status quo.  The problem is a) the centralization issues @anatess2 mentions, and b) that the status quo allows children to be helped by their parents who grew up learningthe same  methodologies.  Common Core denies children this source of support, and there's some evidence that that's why the White House is so enamored of it--there's a belief in the DOE that if ("privileged") parents would quit helping their kids with their homework, a lot of the achievement gap between K-12 students of various ethnicities would disappear.

[LeSellers]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

there's a belief in the DOE that if ("privileged") parents would quit helping their kids with their homework

At least one grtf-welfare school district has toyed with the idea of requesting or forbidding parents from "helping" their children, or even reading to them, since it "tilts the playing field".

GRTF-Welfare schools were designed to divorce children from their parents (in Mann's own words, not mine). That's one reason there is homework: to take even more time away from family-centered activities and to re-enforce the "we know best" attitude implied, if not stated outright.

Lehi

Edited August 20, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

On 8/19/2016 at 7:25 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I remember my seminary teachers trying to help us memorize scriptures, but I don't remember ever passing them off verbatim

Now that you mention it.  You're right.  I was told every year by our teachers to memorize them.  I did so, as did many others.  And we even "competed" in a way between ourselves.  But we never actually had a "pass off" session with the instructor.  Hmmpf.

Go figure.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Guest