heartofdakota.com

My ds is on week 5 in the WG guide. He finds the Fallacy Detective very interesting and he really tries to get the right answers on the exercises, but he is missing a lot. I have helped him make a notebook with the fallacy definitions to use as reference and this helps with those type exercises. However, sometimes the exercises are ones like yesterday and today where you have to figure out if assumptions are being made or solve riddles etc. This is all very new to him, and honestly I tried to answer some of them and I had to cheat and look at the answer. I know he is supposed to grade his answers and we either talk about those he missed or he really looks at what he missed so that he understands why it was wrong, but do I record the actual score he got say 6/9 as his grade or do I just give him full credit for completing the exercise? I hope that makes sense. If I record his actual point total up to this point his grade is not going to be very good, which is frustrating because I feel like he is trying, but it is challenging. Just wondering how others are doing this.

I'm not in this guide, but, I would imagine there should be a portion of his mark for grades, the 6/9, and a portion for effort, work completed, etc. He may not end up with a great grade, but not a total bomb.

ETA- I went and looked at the grading thingy. Looks like completing the work is worth 25%. Of that 25%, I may make the grades they got worth 50% and their effort 50%.

Hi, Lynn! We did that book last year and I'm doing it again right now with my twins. Last year, I counted full credit for reading and completing the exercises for that book as long as good effort was shown. I did not grade it by using how many questions were missed. I agree that often I had to look in the back to find the answers - and sometimes I disagreed with the answers or it just didn't make sense to me. Occasionally, too, the authors use humor in the answers and so you couldn't come up with the right answer because it was actually a joke! Does that make sense? I really do like the book and I think it is a good teaching tool and also very entertaining which gets the kids interested in studying logic. Therefore, it is accomplishing its purpose - which really is to whet their appetite and get their brains introduced to logic in preparation for the more formal book "The Art of Argument" which comes next. When you get to the A of A book, it is much more serious in its questions (although still an enjoyable read) and much easier to grade in a traditional manner for understanding of the content. You can assign actual grades for the assignments there. I believe that was Carrie's intent in putting the study together with the first book preparing the way for the more formal second book. If your son is demonstrating increased understanding and good effort on the exercises, I would give him credit and then do more formal grading when you get to the next book. Just my opinion.

It was a challenge for my son as well but he did put effort into it, so I gave him credit. He enjoyed the book, really liked it, but didn't always get the answer correct.

If he was lazy about it, that would have been different but he really tried and took his time.

Tiffini I thought I remembered Carrie posting something like what you posted. That with Fallacy Detective give him credit as long as he is giving it full effort and then truly grade Art of Argument. That is what I am going to do because I really do feel like he is giving it full effort. I also see him applying what he learns in real life as he hears politicians speak he is picking up on their fallacies. Again he may not know exactly which one it is, but he recognizes it as a fallacy for avoiding the question asked. Thank you for your input. I think this will help him enjoy it more.

Tiffini wrote:... I counted full credit for reading and completing the exercises for that book as long as good effort was shown. I did not grade it by using how many questions were missed. I agree that often I had to look in the back to find the answers - and sometimes I disagreed with the answers or it just didn't make sense to me. Occasionally, too, the authors use humor in the answers and so you couldn't come up with the right answer because it was actually a joke! Does that make sense? I really do like the book and I think it is a good teaching tool and also very entertaining which gets the kids interested in studying logic. Therefore, it is accomplishing its purpose - which really is to whet their appetite and get their brains introduced to logic in preparation for the more formal book "The Art of Argument" which comes next. When you get to the A of A book, it is much more serious in its questions (although still an enjoyable read) and much easier to grade in a traditional manner for understanding of the content. You can assign actual grades for the assignments there. I believe that was Carrie's intent in putting the study together with the first book preparing the way for the more formal second book. If your son is demonstrating increased understanding and good effort on the exercises, I would give him credit and then do more formal grading when you get to the next book. Just my opinion.

This is exactly what both Carrie and I did last year as well! I often had to look at the answers myself and agree with Tiffini's good description of them - the authors have an excellent sense of humor - even in their answers! Reading through the answers together after Wyatt had made his best guesses, and enjoying that learning process together as opposed to wanting him to have it all right right away made it much more successful, both in his attitude about it and what he retained to help him when he got to Art of Argument. BTW, I had to come to this realization myself after first wanting to grade it and being upset he was missing quite a few. Once I looked at Fallacy Detective as the 'introduction' to new subject matter and a new way of thinking that we worked through together, we both took much more from it and enjoyed it so much more. He was able to apply what he learned and expand upon it in Art of Argument then. HTH!

In Christ,
Julie