Have you been wondering if there is anything more you can do to teach God’s truths to your children at home? Do you feel deep down that you need to do more than just having them attend Sunday school each week? Are there things we as parents can do for our kids to teach them God’s ways? YES… there is and as Christian parents God holds us accountable for training up our children in the ways of the Lord. But before you start reliving painful childhood Sunday school moments of memorizing the books of the bible sit tight and stay with me. Teaching kids God’s promises does not require you be the ‘bible answer person’ and know as much as a pastor. It just gives you the chance to
share with your kids how God is working in your life and what he has done for you in the past. Talking to your children about trials and tribulations you have experienced and how God responded to your times of need may be more influential to a young life than you may think. It allows your child to see his parents as humans who have faults that cannot be overcome on our own. Also, it can be used as a lesson in faith that proves to your child that you can overcome practically anything with prayer when God intervenes. My kids love to hear me tell over and over stories about crisis’ I’ve gone through and what
I’ve done. They will even ask to hear the same story two to three times in a row in order to fully comprehend that mom is weak at times and has to call upon someone more powerful than herself in times of need. (I think they actually enjoy hearing that their authority figure has to answer to someone higher!) What a powerful testimony to God’s strength as well as a built in bible lesson in faith and humility.

If you draw on a character or story in the bible that compares to your life experiences this would complete the lesson as full blown bible curriculum. Often times I detail a story about fearful situations I encountered as a child when one of my children is fearful about something. As an example, I also ask them if they thought Gideon was fearful when God reduced his army size to 300 men and told him to fight the enemy army
of thousands. After they answer yes, I then discuss that we all go through fears, real or imagined that keep us paralyzed and unable to move. But just like Gideon, we need to
keep moving through our fears and have faith in God that he will be walking alongside us and fight our battles for us as long as we don’t give up and continue praying to him.

Impressing the word on kid’s hearts does not have to be difficult or expensive. It just requires us to put ourselves in our child’s situation and realize that they just like us
are looking for answers to their daily problems. Please feel free to use any of the free bible lessons on my website to assist you in your journey of instilling God’s precious word on the heart of a child. Whether you find yourself teaching God’s word as you are walking or driving together or lying down or getting up you will realize the opportunities to impress his words upon their heart is unlimited.

Share This

In order to understand the text clearly and learn new vocabulary quickly it would be useful to remember the core four exercises to be done before, during and after reading. All of them are aimed to help good comprehension of the text and learn new words quickly. They are: finding cause effects, making conclusions, putting broken text in order and context clues (which is very effective for new vocabulary learning).

Finding cause effects is the exercise to be used during the text reading. While you are reading you can find sentence pairs which works on cause-effect model. Try to find some actions described in text and ask the question of why these actions have to take place. If there is no a clear statement leading to these actions, re-read the previous paragraph or sentence and try to understand their context which help you make your conclusion of reasons. For example, if one of characters makes conversation with another you can ask the question: Why are they talking about that? Try to find in the text the causes of choosing this topic for conversation. If the author does not give the clear reason try to find the reason by your own using the previous context.

Making conclusions requires good analytical skills. Thus, you should develop analysis before making conclusions. Good exercises for developing analyzing skills would be simple everyday conversations when you use ‘why’ and ‘because’ as much as possible. Here developing cause-effect model would be very useful. Start with analyzing your own problems, achievements, needs, interests etc. Try to fix the cause-effect chain. The skilled analyzer would manage to find at least twelve chain links for any cause-effect model! Use analyzing skills to make conclusion for each paragraph you have just read. Then, make your own conclusion for the whole text. Give your own evaluation for each action and conversation it will help make the final conclusion in brief.

Putting broken text in order is very effective exercise to understand the text. This skill would also be very useful to develop speaking and writing. Sequence exercises can be involved while teaching children to comprehend reading. Children like different charades and they would enjoy finding the first sentence, then the sentence which would come next and so on. It would be funny to mistakenly put the sentences in incorrect order where they cannot understand what they reading! Do not break the whole text. Put each three-four sentences in incorrect order. This exercise is better to be done before reading, it would intrigue readers and make them get interested in knowing the text.

Context clues exercise is one of the models used for new vocabulary learning. Comparing with new words listing, listening, watching and reading context clues can be adapted by any reader irrespective of his/her abilities and psychology. Moreover, finding context clues is the most effective way to remember new words quickly. It is proved humans remember things better if they can link these things with some action, gesture, environment, glance etc. Guessing the meaning of the new word using the other words which come before and after this word could also develop analyzing skills.

Share This

I’m writing to readers. I’m not dyslexic. But I have people with dyslexia in my family. I don’t truly understand their frustration. Though I try.

I can see the frustration building in the dyslexic. And I know that I can often be the cause. I blindly go about an interaction that ignores the challenges that one of these family members may face and then increase the difficulty for them. When it doesn’t have to be.

It’s not about making concessions, expecting less from those with dyslexia. Not at all. It is about understanding how is the easiest way for everyone to accomplish something.

Here are some examples: Asking for something from a dyslexic or telling new information in the middle of a big long conversation. No follow up, no emphasis on the important things. And then being upset when it isn’t done. You may know what I’m talking about.

A big example is expecting a person with dyslexia to write notes when they should just be listening and learning the big idea. They get so caught up, and usually with frustration, with the writing that they have no idea what the point is. Separate the first exposure to new information and the writing of the information. Even better, write a guide or notes on the information and give it to them. Allow them to learn how they learn best. Lower the frustration for people with dyslexia. And support that way of learning.

This isn’t a way for them to avoid writing and learning to read. Believe me they get enough exposure to words. This makes life easier and probably more enjoyable. And the experience of learning more effective.

It’s actually selfish - make their life easier and productive and you’ll encounter less difficulty too. Let’s make the best use of what we’re all good at.

Reading and writing are just tools. Yes, we live in a world that is very dependent on the written word, but it is just one way of doing things. Not the only way and certainly not the best way. There are other tools that your dyslexic friend may be able to help you learn - which will make your life better.

Nobody has all the answers. We’re all just different. And there are easy and hard ways to approach an interaction. Go for the most effective and the most satisfying. Life is hard enough. Don’t make it worse for no good reason. Find out what frustrates the people you work and live with and stop doing your part. Learn and practice the supportive way to work together. You’ll be surprised.

Share This

~Continued From Part 1~

Before long Athenian morale had fallen sharply. In an attempt to boost his peoples’ sagging spirits and restore the confidence they had lost, Pericles spoke about the City’s greatness during the annual “public funeral” that was held to honor her war dead.

“Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not the few,” the Athenian leader declared. “There is no exclusiveness in our public life we are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace; the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics,” he added before addressing the courage of the City’s defenders who had fallen in battle. “Methinks that a death such as theirs gives the true measure of a man’s worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; on the battle-field their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens.”[1]

Yet the epidemic was too great for Athenians to bear, which was made even worse by the hot summer as described by Diodorus Siculus - “the etesian winds by which normally most of the heat in the summer is cooled failed to blow; and when the heat intensified and the air grew fiery, the bodies of the inhabitants, being without anything to cool them, wasted away.”[2]

Social order collapsed as many abandoned the dead along with their sick friends and family since “strong and weak constitutions proved equally incapable of resistance…”[3] To Thucydides, this was the worst part of the epidemic - “By far the most terrible feature in the malady was the dejection which ensured when any one felt himself sickening, for the despair into which they instantly fell took away their power of resistance, and left them a much easier prey to the disorder; besides which, there was the awful spectacle of men dying like sheep, though having caught the infection in nursing each other. On the other hand, if they were afraid to visit each other, they perished from neglect; indeed many houses were emptied for want of a nurse: on the other, if they ventured to do so, death was the consequence.”[4]

At the same time, as mentioned earlier, many suffering from the affects of the plague threw themselves into cisterns and water tanks - “all the illnesses which prevailed at the time were found to be accompanied by fever, the cause of which was the excessive heat. And this was the reason why most of the sick threw themselves into the cisterns and springs in their craving to cool their bodies,”[5] Diodorus Siculus added. Some even amputated extremities such as fingers and toes in a desperate attempt to survive. “[N]umerous unburied bodies were left lying here and there.”[6]

Per Thucydides, “The bodies of dying men lay one upon another, and half-dead creatures reeled about the streets and gathered round all the fountains in their longing for water. The sacred places also in which they had quartered themselves were full of corpses for as the disaster passed all bounds, men, not knowing what was to become of them, became utterly careless of everything All burial rites before in use were entirely upset, and they buried the bodies as best they could [Wood used for pyres, became scarce.] Sometimes getting the start of those who raised a pile, they threw their own dead body upon the stranger’s pyre and ignited it Fear of the gods or law there was none to restrain them No one expected to be brought to trial for his offenses, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon all.”[7] Even beasts and birds of prey avoided the dead - “All the birds and beasts that prey upon human bodies, either abstained from touching them, or died after tasting them. In proof of this, it was noticed that birds of this kind actually disappeared; they were not about the bodies, or indeed to be seen at all,” Thucydides wrote.[8]

With no one certain that they would survive since it seemed like everyone regardless of the precautions they took, fell ill - “Athenians avoided each other but perished anyway,”[9] most ignoring the “moans of the dying”[10] as they “hastened to gratify their tastes, and abandoned themselves to the greatest moral depravity.”[11]

Per Thucydides, “Men now coolly ventured on what they had formerly done in a corner, and not just as they pleased, seeing the rapid transitions produced by persons in prosperity suddenly dying and those who before had nothing succeeding to their property. So they resolved to spend quickly and enjoy themselves, regarding their lives and riches as alike things of a day. Perseverance in what men called honor was popular with none, it was so uncertain whether they would be spared to attain the object; but it was settled that present enjoyment, and all that contributed to it, was both honorable and useful. Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them. As for the first, they judged it to be just the same whether they worshipped them or not, as they saw all alike perishing; and for the last, no one expected to live to be brought to trial for his offenses, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon them all and hung ever over their heads, and before this fell it was only reasonable to enjoy life a little.”[12]

At the same time, with 25% of the City’s population dead, the people turned on their leader. They blamed Pericles, whom they viewed as “the author of the war”[13] for the outbreak (because of his strategy of bringing everyone within the City’s walls even though he “had had no [viable] alternative since it would have been suicidal to engage the larger and better-trained [Laced

Share This

What’s true is that language is simply the manner through which we communicate.
Communication is possible for humans through any number of forms.
These include, but are not limited to, speech and sign language.
Communication via language is necessary for a transfer of knowledge to
take place. In order for this to occur it is necessary that more than
one person comprehend the language in question, be it English, Xhousa
or American Sign Language (ASL). If others can not comprehend what is
being communicated to them it is because they do not understand the
language, or dialect, being used.

For a language to be understood it is necessary for the speakers to
have an understanding of the rules or grammar of the language in
question. The sounds that are used to communicate make up the
phonology. These sounds are attributed meaning. The forms and meanings
of sounds are usually arbitrary, except in the case of onomatopoeia.
Knowledge of the sound (or sign) system is not the only thing
necessary for the understanding and usage of a language. The manner in
which the words are structured is the morphology. Words are than used
to make up phrases; the way in which this is done is governed by
syntax. In addition a deep knowledge of the meaning and sounds of
words, known as semantics, is necessary for the understanding of a
language, as is knowledge of the words themselves, the lexicon.

Although there is at any given time a finite number of words in any
given language there is an infinite number of combinations, or
phrases that can be produced. To produce new phrases, however,
requires that the speaker has a knowledge, subconscious (in the case
of a native speaker) or taught (in the case of a foreign speaker) of
the rules of grammar, as stated above. Humans are capable of learning
these rules with some ease, especially at a young age, and thus do not
have to memorize phrases, but can use the rules of grammar and their
knowledge of the lexicon to produce a phrase for any situation which
their vocabulary covers. This is the creative aspect of language, as
such humans are not limited to responding to external stimulus, such
as a dog barking loudly and menacingly when there is an intrusion on
their territory. A human, capable of language, could greet the
intruder, warn the intruder off politely, threaten the intruders’
life, or even ask what the weather forecast is for the following day.
The aspects of language that I have described above are in no way
limited to a few languages, in fact they make up what is known as the
general grammar and are universal for all languages, be it English,
ASL or Xhousa.

As Fromkin and Rodman put it in their book, An Introduction to
Language, “A language, then, consists of all the sounds, words, and
possible sentences. When you know a language, you know the sounds, the
words, and the rules for their combination.”

Can then animals have language. Animals do communicate in order to
survive, there are mating dances, warning cries and other ways in
which animals communicate with each other. Do they, however, have
language? For us to answer this question we must divide language into
a number of aspects and see whether animals perform in a manner
comparable to humans. Humans principally communicate to each other
through the use of speech.

This vocal-auditory system is not at all
uncommon in the animal kingdom as a form of communication; a simple
example is bird-song. Bird-song is used by the bird to demarcate its
territory and advertise for a mate. Is this language? The use of
sounds to communicate is not the only way in which to communicate,
humans use sign language and bees “dance”. As such this is not an
important as aspect of language when it comes to deciding whether
animals can talk. Arbitrariness is an important aspect of language for
humans but which is not unique to them. For the vervet monkey,
different calls relating to different predators, but these calls bear
no connection to the predator. This leads on to semantically, each
predator of the vervet monkey has a different call assigned to it. In
other, within the vocabulary of the vervet monkey the “word” for eagle
is different from the word for “lion”.

There is however a limit to
this vocabulary. While there are hundreds of thousands of words in the
English language, the vervet monkey has only about thirty. The next
aspect is known as tradition. Is the language taught or is it learnt
from others. A human child kept in isolation will not pick up English,
or any other language for that manner. This may be because the child
does not need to communicate with anyone simply because there is no
one to communicate with. Birds on the other hand will develop
bird-song in isolation. The bird-song will be abnormal, but it will
recognizable. It appears that the communication systems of many
animals are genetically in-built, in that they do not have to be in
the presence of others for it to be triggered or learnt. Humans are
known for beginning conversations about various topics, be it the
weather to asking for directions. On the other hand, other animals
only communicate when there is a reason, i.e. their communication is
dependant on stimulus, e.g. a danger call by the vervet monkey. This
is aspect is not however, unique to humans.

Humans also usually take
tuns speaking or signing, as do birds. Humans also use double
articulation, and once again so do birds. What do appear to be
unique to humans is structure, and a dependence on that structure for
the communication to be understood. Humans are also creative in there
speech, we can come with an infinite number of phrases to discuss any
topic, object or situation we can imagine. Animals cannot or do not.
Bees only communicate about the horizontal distance of a food source,
vervet monkeys limit there communication to little more than signals
of danger, and birds, which are capable of producing an almost
unlimited number of utterances don’t.

It seems then that animals are
not capable of attaining all of the aspects of language that humans
can even though some, such as birds to create a number. In the case of
birds they don not seem to have any need or desire to communicate in a
“human” fashion. As Jean Aitchison puts it in her book, The Articulate
Mammal, “Above all, no animal can communicate creatively with another
animal.” Of course it is always difficult to be sure, one way or the
other, because we are studying forms of communication which are
different and foreign to us. It would be easier to learn a foreign
language from a native speaker of that language who does not speak
English.

This difficulty, however, has not deterred people from trying. In
fact, for over half-a-century humans have been trying to teach apes,
are closest genetic “relatives” to speak our languages. Attempts to
teach apes to physically speak failed because of the physical
impossibility of the action. Basically, human speech is produced by
manipulation of the larynx to produce sound waves. The chimps’
comparable physical feature is in a position that precludes the
production of the sounds we humans produce. Before this fact was
recognized an infant chimpanzee was exposed to language in tandem with
a child of a similar age. Although the chimp never uttered a word, she
did learn the meaning of over seventy single words.

Far more successful and fascinating were the attempts to teach apes
language made two decades later. These attempts can be divided into
those apes who were taught sign language, and those who were taught to
use symbols to communicate. When we look at these efforts and their
results we must be careful to distinguish whether the animal has
uttered the words, for the sake of uttering them, or whether the
utterances are meaningful in that the ape is attempting to
communicate.

Those apes who were taught sign language were instructed in a modified
form of ASL. It was found that in the early stages of learning that
the chimps’ learning curve was comparable to that of an infant. It is
apparent that the chimps had mastered a certain amount of semanticity,
they understood the meanings of particular signs. However the
vocabulary of these “students” never became very large, the most
optimist estimates being over a hundred. In addition there is evidence
of displacement, evidenced by the fact that a chimp, in this case
Washoe, asked for an object that was absent. Although the chimps were
capable of, and repeatedly did use great amounts of repetition, the
creativity of the apes was limited to actual word strings of two,
three and on rare occasions four words. The strings themselves did not
have a set order or combination, something which indicates a lack of
structure dependence, this however, can be explained away as being due
to stress on the animal or imprecise training. In addition there was
no turn taking, no real conversation.

In the case of apes that used symbols to communicate, there is
evidence of creativity, semanticity and displacement, but little
evidence of a mastery of structure-dependant operations. Although two
chimps have learnt that when one of them presses a symbol the other
can collect the object that is represented by that symbol. Although an
impressive piece of communication, it is no different to the trainers
filling in the role of one or the other animal since neither of the
animals conversed simply in order to converse. This trait is apparent
in all apes.

Although the apes did assimilate some of the aspects that make up
language, they did so in a rudimentary and limited fashion. In addition
no ape was cognizant with all of the rules of grammar discussed at the
beginning of this essay, subconsciously or consciously. The human
manner of speech seems unnatural for the ape and a great deal of
effort is necessary to obtain limited results. It is also apparent
that apes do not need a sophisticated system of language to be apes,
but that for humans to be humans, we do. As such it appears that apes,
along with the rest of the animal Kingdom, excluding humans, cannot
“speak” as humans can. We must then ask why this is so and perhaps
consider why it is that we seem to be unique in that we can
communicate just for the sake of talking. Perhaps Chomsky is correct.

Share This