Truthquest question

I think what is meant by “connecting” in the sample lesson is the idea that each lesson needs to be connected to the previous one from that book, so when the child remembers one aspect, he pulls the whole mental thread from his mental “well.” This is the pre-reading review/introduction step, which we include in the history handbooks.

Here is Charlotte’s much better explanation.

You want a child to remember? Then secure his whole attention, the fixed gaze of his mind, as it were, upon the fact to be remembered; then he will have it: by a sort of photographic (!) process, that fact or idea is ‘taken’ by his brain, and when he is an old man, perhaps, the memory of it will flash across him.

Recollection and the Law of Association.—But it is not enough to have a recollection flash across one incidentally; we want to have the power of recalling at will: and for this, something more is necessary than an occasional act of attention producing a solitary impression. Supposing, for instance, that by good teaching you secure the child’s attention to the verb avoir, he will remember it; that is to say, some infinitely slight growth of brain tissue will record and retain that one French verb. But one verb is nothing; you want the child to learn French, and for this you must not only fix his attention upon each new lesson, but each must be so linked into the last that it is impossible for him to recall one without the other following in its train. The physical effect of such a method appears to be that each new growth of the brain tissue is, so to speak, laid upon the last; that is, to put it figuratively, a certain tract of the brain may be conceived of as being overlaid with French. This is to make a practical use of that law of association of ideas of which one would not willingly become the sport; and it is the neglect of this law which invalidates much good teaching. The teacher is content to produce a solitary impression which is only recalled as it is acted upon by a chance suggestion; whereas he should forge the links of a chain to draw his bucket out of the well. Probably the reader may have heard, or heard of, a Dr Pick, who grounded a really philosophical system of mnemonics on these two principles of attention and association. Whatever we may think of his application of it, the principle he asserted is the right one.

Every Lesson must recall the Last.—Let every lesson gain the child’s entire attention, and let each new lesson be so interlaced with the last that the one must recall the other; that again, recalls the one before it, and so on to the beginning.

No Limit to the Recording Power of the Brain.—But the ‘lightly come, lightly go’ of a mere verbal memory follows no such rules. The child gets his exercise ‘by heart,’ says it off like a parrot, and behold, it is gone; there is no record of it upon the brain at all. To secure such a record, there must be time; time for that full gaze of the mind we call attention, and for the growth of the brain tissue to the new idea. Given these conditions, there appears to be no limit of quantity to the recording power of the brain. Except in this way: a girl learns French, and speaks it fairly well; by the time she is a grandmother she has forgotten it entirely, has not a word left. When this is the case, her French has been disused; she has not been in the habit of reading, hearing, or speaking French from youth to age. Whereby it is evident that, to secure right-of-way to that record of French imprinted on her brain, the path should have been kept open by frequent goings and comings.

But Links of Association a Condition of Recollection.—To acquire any knowledge or power whatsoever, and then to leave it to grow rusty in a neglected corner of the brain, is practically useless. Where there is no chain of association to draw the bucket out of the well, it is all the same as if there were no water there. As to how to form these links, every subject will suggest a suitable method. The child has a lesson about Switzerland to-day, and one about Holland to-morrow, and the one is linked to the other by the very fact that the two countries have hardly anything in common; what the one has, the other has not. Again, the association will be of similarity, and not of contrast. In our own experience we find that colours, places, sounds, odors recall persons or events; but links of this sensuous order can hardly be employed in education. The link between any two things must be found in the nature of the things associated (Vol. 1, ,pp. 158, 159).

One more point that stood out to me from the sample lesson is that the questions to be asked are discussion-type questions, not direct questions on the content. Discussion questions following a narration are allowed and encouraged. You may want to read the entire lesson plan; it’s taken from Vol. 3, pp. 334-336.

Thanks, Sonya! That makes sense. 

Binky, meshing SCM w/TQ wasn’t hard for me last year because using SCM book selections helped me to narrow the large TQ list and not get overburdened w/too many books.  It’s hard for me to narrow…so many sound wonderful:)  We didn’t use the SCM guide. Next year I’d like the planning done for me, so I plan to buy the SCM guide and just jot a note of what page to read in the TQ commentary at appropriate times. We’re doing ancients, so I don’t think it will be too much since a lot of it is bible time. I’ll also jot in a few TQ ‘don’t miss’ books, I’m sure, and some movies.  I’m hoping I’m not tempted to tweak so much it’s like planning myself again:)  But the SCM guides are so reasonable I think it will be worth it.  Blessings, Gina

P.S.  Last year, we did history as a family (me reading commentary/occasional spine material or living book) 4-5x/week for 20-30 min.  My 12 yo read SCM history readers 4x/wk and my 9yo read SCM history readers 3x/week. They read 1-2 ch. per reading.

Gina makes some really good points here.  This is a good question, and one that really gets at exactly what we do in a lesson.  I’m glad to see thinking on this.

Yes, we do NOT want to make all connections for our children.  We don’t spell out every little detail for them and tell them exactly what to think.  We don’t have to slavishly correlate every little detail down to chronological order and make everything “fit” perfectly together.  We don’t color in our children’s paintings ourselves.  🙂

However, this does NOT mean that every lesson is taught in strict isolation from everything else and all context.  We can draw out a basic FRAMEWORK for our children–help them with a basic OUTLINE–and then they color it in.  In my opinion, Michelle’s commentary and questions (you’ll notice she asks LOTS of questions–her intent is to get us thinking, not tell us exactly WHAT to think) are very helpful in providing that basic framework that the kids can then flesh out and fill in.  One thing I have done in the past is hold off on reading Michelle’s commentary right away, and begin to ask the children what THEY think first, to see if they are beginning to apply the big questions on their own.  Then we can read and enjoy the commentary and discuss.  (This would be for children who are used to the basic approach, obviously, not for the second day using TQ.) 

We need a balance in our lessons.  Some lessons may not need a whole  lot of advance prep.  Some do!  I do think that the idea that CM lessons are NO PREP, that we ONLY hand a child a book and leave them on their own until narration time, is a common CM fallacy and one that I always ask when someone tells me their kids are not retaining as much as they want.  Retention goes up when we can embed the reading into what they already know.  We don’t want to totally do this FOR them, but they do need some basic info/basic framework at times.  This is where things like timelines/Books of Centuries are so critical. 

Such great food for thought from everyone. I’m always learning something.  I love this forum!!!   Wish you all could be here in town for a CM study group or co-op:)

Binky, next year will be our first year using the SCM guides.  We’ve been studying American History and the guides weren’t completed yet when we would have needed them.  I’ve also been hesitant to order another guide after I used another curriculum’s…I always felt behind, busywork, etc.  But I really like the looks of SCM’s, esp. how it’s planned out by day rather than by week…just do the next day.  I know I”ll always have additional books I’ll want to add, and I’ll add the TQ commentary, but the guide seems to the point and not time-consuming, so I don’t anticipate it being too much.  But haven’t used it yet:)

We’ve used SCM history for 2 1/2 yrs. Not exactly as written….but most of it.  We’ve enjoyed the books and being on the same history cycle…which is why we switched from our last CM curriculum.  HTH some:) Gina