OT - sp. - was Cat Protector at it again

I used to assume that good readers were automatically good spellers - and
the other way around. But after about the first 10 years of working w/ kids
who were great readers but poor spellers, or great spellers but poor
readers, I changed my mind. Plus 2 people in my own family are voracious (&
good) readers, but their spelling leaves something to be desired. ;-)

So... I've decided that spelling is often simply a talent, & that it may -
or may not - be linked w/ reading skills. The detail-oriented thing may be
a part of the package, too, though...

Cathy

Cathy, I've often wondered if the *way* we were taught to read, whether we were
taught to read phonetically, contributes to the ability to spell well. One
thing I *have* learned over the years is that the ability to spell has no
bearing whatsoever on education or intelligence. Some of the smartest people I
know are lousy spellers.

Sherry

So... I've decided that spelling is often simply a talent, & that it may -
or may not - be linked w/ reading skills. The detail-oriented thing may be
a part of the package, too, though...

Cathy

Arrrgghh. That's the part that got left out of my package. :-(

Sherry

So... I've decided that spelling is often simply a talent, & that it may -
or may not - be linked w/ reading skills. The detail-oriented thing may be
a part of the package, too, though...

Cathy

Arrrgghh. That's the part that got left out of my package. :-(

Sherry

"Sherry " wrote in message
...
I used to assume that good readers were automatically good spellers - and
the other way around. But after about the first 10 years of working w/
kids
who were great readers but poor spellers, or great spellers but poor
readers, I changed my mind. Plus 2 people in my own family are voracious
(&
good) readers, but their spelling leaves something to be desired. ;-)

So... I've decided that spelling is often simply a talent, & that it
may -
or may not - be linked w/ reading skills. The detail-oriented thing may
be
a part of the package, too, though...

Cathy

Cathy, I've often wondered if the *way* we were taught to read, whether we
were
taught to read phonetically, contributes to the ability to spell well.

I also used to think that perhaps that came into play - "sight" Vs. phonics,
for ex. I was taught via phonics (can still remember my 1st gr. teacher
explaining the 'silent e', for ex. - whoa! - all of a sudden I could read
*tons* of new words I didn't know a few minutes ago!). But I think my
father was taught via sight, & my sister learned to read phonetically; both
are good readers but mot-so-hot spellers. Plus I've always (since '72)
taught reading phonetically (okay, some words are sight words, but
basically...), & after about 10 years of teaching, that's when I decided
that it's just as much of a talent than anything else. Plus, I'm a visual
learner, & find that I spell both by how word look (it either looks right,
or doesn't), & phonetically - breaking words up into syllables &
letter-sound relationships w/in the syllables. So... I think there's quite
a mix in there. ;-)

One
thing I *have* learned over the years is that the ability to spell has no
bearing whatsoever on education or intelligence. Some of the smartest
people I
know are lousy spellers.

Absolutely. And sometimes I've hit upon great spellers - or even great oral
readers, complete with expression, no less - who are not very intelligent.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Sherry " wrote in message
...
I used to assume that good readers were automatically good spellers - and
the other way around. But after about the first 10 years of working w/
kids
who were great readers but poor spellers, or great spellers but poor
readers, I changed my mind. Plus 2 people in my own family are voracious
(&
good) readers, but their spelling leaves something to be desired. ;-)

So... I've decided that spelling is often simply a talent, & that it
may -
or may not - be linked w/ reading skills. The detail-oriented thing may
be
a part of the package, too, though...

Cathy

Cathy, I've often wondered if the *way* we were taught to read, whether we
were
taught to read phonetically, contributes to the ability to spell well.

I also used to think that perhaps that came into play - "sight" Vs. phonics,
for ex. I was taught via phonics (can still remember my 1st gr. teacher
explaining the 'silent e', for ex. - whoa! - all of a sudden I could read
*tons* of new words I didn't know a few minutes ago!). But I think my
father was taught via sight, & my sister learned to read phonetically; both
are good readers but mot-so-hot spellers. Plus I've always (since '72)
taught reading phonetically (okay, some words are sight words, but
basically...), & after about 10 years of teaching, that's when I decided
that it's just as much of a talent than anything else. Plus, I'm a visual
learner, & find that I spell both by how word look (it either looks right,
or doesn't), & phonetically - breaking words up into syllables &
letter-sound relationships w/in the syllables. So... I think there's quite
a mix in there. ;-)

One
thing I *have* learned over the years is that the ability to spell has no
bearing whatsoever on education or intelligence. Some of the smartest
people I
know are lousy spellers.

Absolutely. And sometimes I've hit upon great spellers - or even great oral
readers, complete with expression, no less - who are not very intelligent.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Laura R." wrote in message
...
circa Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:08:50 -0600, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav,
Rona Yuthasastrakosol ) said,
Don't forget "your" to indicate "you are". That one sets my teeth on
edge. Actually, so do all the ones you listed, plus a dozen or two
others, but that's beside the point. ;-)


I must admit, I did not include that one because I've noticed that I
have a
tendency to use one for the other when I type quickly =:-o!. I don't do
it
when writing long-hand, though, so the confusion must have something to
do
with speed and time for reflection.

"Its" & "it's" being another pair. Many people seem to have no idea which
is which - & I find, when typing, that I may accidentally use "it's" when I
really wanted "its".

rona (just about 5 hours left before I have to stop myself from all
these OT
posts! But they're so much fun!)

Aren't they, though? :-)

They often are, I agree. One of my other ngs often experiences serious
bouts of thread drift, but most of us on the group love it. It also
contributes to ng cohesion, I think. IOW - a sense of community builds up.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Laura R." wrote in message
...
circa Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:08:50 -0600, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav,
Rona Yuthasastrakosol ) said,
Don't forget "your" to indicate "you are". That one sets my teeth on
edge. Actually, so do all the ones you listed, plus a dozen or two
others, but that's beside the point. ;-)


I must admit, I did not include that one because I've noticed that I
have a
tendency to use one for the other when I type quickly =:-o!. I don't do
it
when writing long-hand, though, so the confusion must have something to
do
with speed and time for reflection.

"Its" & "it's" being another pair. Many people seem to have no idea which
is which - & I find, when typing, that I may accidentally use "it's" when I
really wanted "its".

rona (just about 5 hours left before I have to stop myself from all
these OT
posts! But they're so much fun!)

Aren't they, though? :-)

They often are, I agree. One of my other ngs often experiences serious
bouts of thread drift, but most of us on the group love it. It also
contributes to ng cohesion, I think. IOW - a sense of community builds up.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

Fan wrote in message ...

In some parts of the US, the carbonated beverages that come in a can
or plastic bottle, such as Coca Cola, Sprite and Orange Crush are
called pop. In other areas they are called soda. Still others call it
soda pop and finally some call it Coke, no matter what brand or flavor
it is.

And then there are hero sandwiches, subs, hoagies, & probably other
variations, too.

Americans use an elevator and British use a lift. Same for apartment
vs flat and truck vs lory.

Or the more amusing ones: Americans use an eraser and the British use a
rubber. The British get knocked up in the morning, and Americans have
someone knock on the door to wake them up.

New Yorkers stand "on" line

I take it just NYC stands "on" line? I've never noticed when visiting, to
tell the truth. Upstate (NYS), we stand "in" line.

I have noticed that while Americans live "on" such & such street or road,
that the British live "in" such & such street or road.

and most of the
rest of the country stands "in" line. Interesting how we do things
differently in different countries, even regions.

It is interesting. Very.

What is the plural of a single letter?

I don't know - always a problem. When you find out, please tell me!

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

Fan wrote in message ...

In some parts of the US, the carbonated beverages that come in a can
or plastic bottle, such as Coca Cola, Sprite and Orange Crush are
called pop. In other areas they are called soda. Still others call it
soda pop and finally some call it Coke, no matter what brand or flavor
it is.

And then there are hero sandwiches, subs, hoagies, & probably other
variations, too.

Americans use an elevator and British use a lift. Same for apartment
vs flat and truck vs lory.

Or the more amusing ones: Americans use an eraser and the British use a
rubber. The British get knocked up in the morning, and Americans have
someone knock on the door to wake them up.

New Yorkers stand "on" line

I take it just NYC stands "on" line? I've never noticed when visiting, to
tell the truth. Upstate (NYS), we stand "in" line.

I have noticed that while Americans live "on" such & such street or road,
that the British live "in" such & such street or road.

and most of the
rest of the country stands "in" line. Interesting how we do things
differently in different countries, even regions.

It is interesting. Very.

What is the plural of a single letter?

I don't know - always a problem. When you find out, please tell me!

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Liz" wrote in message
m...
"Cathy Friedmann" wrote in message
When I was little, we were given the facts, told to memorize them, &
that
was that. This sort of thing makes math a while

Ummm... make that "whole"...

lot more fun, IMO. ;-)
And your niece's teacher will most likely incorporate it into her
lessons.

Cathy

Do you also use the one for 9? The first digits goes from zero onward,
and the last digit from 9 to zero repeatedly. And when you add the
digits individually, the answer is always 9.

Yep, I use that one - the kids usually find that pattern, since we've been
looking for patterns all along, while learning the times tables. There's
also what one kid, several years ago, dubbed the "rainbow" pattern. Between
9 x 5 = 45 & 9 x 6 = 54, the digits in the products switch places, w/ a sort
of line of symmetry being between 45 & 54. If you draw lines/arcs between
the matching reversed products after writing out the 9s mult. table
(vertically written), it looks like a sideways rainbow. ;-) The 9s are
almost in their own category - they're fascinating! You can find pattern
after pattern after pattern going on w/them.

That way you know if a
number is divisible by nine and three, and if the number is even, by 6
also.

09 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 etc.

1287 (9x143) = 1+2+8+7 = 18 = 1+8 = 9

This, I haven't used.

Plus, there's the fingers trick for mult. by 9. If you hold up all ten
fingers, & counting from the left, put down the finger that represents the
factor other than 9, the fingers still up represent the answer: the fingers
to the left of the "downed" finger are in the tens place, & the ones to the
right are in the ones place. Say you're multiplying 9 x 7. You'd put down
the index finger of your right hand (7th finger from the left). All 5
fingers are still up on your left hand, & 1 finger is still up on your right
hand - that's the "6" of "60";and 3 fingers are still up on your right hand,
so that's 3. So... 9 x 7 = 63.

Or... (which relates to the first pattern mentioned, above) if you subtract
1 from whatever the other factor is, that becomes the digit of the tens
place in the product. Then think: what added to that number = 9? And plop
it into the ones place of the product,. Voilá - the answer. IOW - 4 x 9 = ?
4 - 1 = 3. Then think: 3 + ? (6) = 9. So 4 x 9 = 36.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon