Posts in March 2009

A new schoolsystem in Waterrijk

Posted by Alie

Someone made a comment about a new school system in the Netherlands… since I had never heard of it before, I looked it up on the internet and for those interested, here is the information about a new school in Waterrijk.

Their child vision is the base of the new school system. Their beliefs are that children are naturally inclined to want to learn, to develop. They are curious and want to explore and investigate. Often a child’s natural curiosity is put on a leash as soon as they go to school. In Waterrijk they feel the school should be a place who appeals to this natural curiosity. Children will then learn from their own free will. Practice makes perfect, by their actions a child will gain new insights. Theory comes after practice. From the need to want something, children discover they can do something and acquire knowledge.

Mr. Luc Stevens did a research about what basic needs were necessary to make sure a child can develop themselves. He narrowed the basics down to autonomy, relation and ability. A school has to consider a child’s abilities. By encouraging children, daring them to explore and discover, asking questions and let them ask questions, their abilities are enhanced. According to him, children have the ability to take responsibility for their own development. A child should have the chance to develop at their own speed. When a child is given this responsibility, their self confidence increases. Children learn from each other (and adults) and with each other. They need an environment that appreciates them for who they are. They learn from their relations with others.

Waterrijks Vision:

Learning is not subjected to time.

Children also learn outside of school. Today, children have more information sources available to them like television, internet, educational toys etc. A child determines when and how long it spends time to something. A child is autonomous, independent. The teacher can offer certain projects at given times and the child can decide whether they want to partake or not. Children have their own voice and they determine their own learning curve. Sometimes a child has more need for structure and can find it difficult to make a choice. At his point certain activities may become compulsory. Also, the children are able to determine for themselves when they need a small break.

Learning is not subjected to place.

Learning occurs inside as well as outside school. The school environment should be an integral part of the teaching method. There are many possibilities for school excursions. By confronting the children with reality, learning will have more meaning. The child determines where they want to learn in school. They choose a room to learn by themselves.

Learning is a community thing.

A child determines with whom and from whom they want to learn. Working together is stimulated. The children operate from previous set basic groups. Within these groups they can:

1. celebrate birthdays

2. share personal experiences within the trusted confinement of the group

3. talk about their experiences which may stimulate others

4. learn about the planned activities for the day so the children have a clear perspective on the possibilities

5. gaining experience as a group through gymnastics, music or other group activity

6. give a presentation

7. eat together

Because there is a lot more info to share about this new method, I would like to know if more people are interested in this subject. If so, I can spend the next few posts about this subject too.

 

diminutives

Posted by Alie

In the Netherlands everything is small! At least that’s what you might think when you hear us using so many diminutives. Even though most diminutives in Dutch end with

–je, there are still different ways to ‘make a word smaller’. Some words get extra letters besides –je. Also, most diminutives are used for nouns.

Many words only end with –je, but often there’s a letter or two extra! And the article used with a diminutive is ALWAYS ‘het’, no matter what article is used with the regular noun form. These are the most common rules but I’ve kept it down a bit to prevent making this more confusing than it really is. If you have questions, please let me know

The words that don’t fall under one of the below described categories, end with –je.

Examples:

  • Het huis -         het huisje (house)
  • De staaf -        het staafje (stick)
  • De boot -        het bootje (boat)
  • Het apparaat - het apparaatje (device)

Words that end with: -e, -ou, -ie, -eu, -w and –ee get –tje at the end of the diminutive.

Examples:

  • De dame -       het dametje (lady)
  • De kou -          het koutje (cold)
  • De kolibrie -    het kolibrietje (hummingbird)
  • De wei -          het weitje (meadow)
  • De slee -          het sleetje (sleigh)
  • De leeuw -       het leeuwtje
  • De duw -         het duwtje

Words that end with –a, -o, -u, en –é get a double vowel.

Examples:

  • De opa -          het opaatje (grandpa)
  • De auto -         het autootje (car)
  • Het menu -      het menuutje (menu)
  • Het café -        het cafeetje (café)

 

 


Words that end with –i

With these words, the –i changes in –ie

  • De ski – het skietje (ski)

Words that end with –y

With these words there’s an apostrophe between the substansive and – tje

  • De baby – het baby’tje

Words that end with –l, -n, or –r, with a double vowel before those letters.

  • De schaal – het schaaltje (dish)
  • De pompoen – het pompoentje (pumpkin)
  • De schuur – het schuurtje (shed)
 

Omdat and doordat, revisited

Posted by Alie

In response to a few comments and questions on my ‘Omdat and doordat’ post, I would like to shortly revisit the topic again.

The reason why this topic seems so difficult, is because the topic itself is difficult, even for native Dutch people. That’s the reason why the word ‘omdat’ is also more and more used where ‘doordat’ should be used. It seems like ‘doordat’ is slowly fading away and being replaced by ‘omdat’. Still, there is still an official difference between the two words.

It’s difficult to find a proper English translation… but ‘omdat’ is used in a sentence that shows a ‘reason’ and ‘doordat’ is used in a sentence with a ‘cause and effect’. Also, ‘omdat’ refers to a human decision or opinion. ‘Doordat’ refers to an external (non human) event.

So, to use the examples Bill provided in his comment:

1) He had a big cut on his arm DOORDAT he was in a knife fight.

2) He arrived late DOORDAT his car broke down.

3) I enjoy this class OMDAT it’s fun.

And you are correct in all three sentences! Seems like you got the theory nailed Bill!

The first two sentences clearly show a ‘cause and effect’. The knife fight is the ‘cause’ and the big cut is the ‘effect’. The broken car is the ‘cause’ and arriving late is the ‘effect’.

Also the second sentence refers to an external (non human) event (the car broke down)… something that’s not as clear in the first sentence, but in that case ‘doordat’ is still correct because of the ‘cause and effect’.

And to be honest, it sometimes still confuses me because ‘rain’ is also an external event and still in that example ‘omdat’ is correct to use.

To give you two more examples:

“I never buy Brussel sprouts OMDAT I hate them”

“Yesterday I missed an important meeting DOORDAT the train was delayed.

 

Peter R. de Vries, misdaadverslaggever

Posted by Alie

Already a celebrity in the Netherlands, because of his crime-reporting skills, a man became world famous for ‘solving’ the Natalee Holloway case. Of course, I’m now talking about

Peter R. de Vries, misdaadverslaggever (the crime reporter).

For some people, he seemed to appear on tv out of the blue… a wannabe celebrity taking undercover cases and exposing criminals. For other people, he was not so new, since he’s been writing for the Dutch newspaper ‘De Telegraaf’ since 1977 and in 1987 he transformed the Dutch magazine ‘Aktueel’ into a crime report magazine. He also appeared in a few

tv programmes, until he got his own programme in 1998…

When Natalee Holloway disappeared in 2005, Peter de Vries was requested several times to investigate her disappearance. When the following year he received a few interesting tips, he decided to travel to Aruba to continue the research.

Peter R. de Vries is quite known for his unorthodox way of investigating. Where others seem to fail to gain information, he succeeds… So we weren’t surprised that soon after his arrival in Aruba, he presented us with facts that were overlooked by the local police.

On the 26th of November, a special edition of Peter R. de Vries, misdaadverslaggever, appeared on television, revealing all that Peter had found during the investigation. They visit the home of prime suspect, Joran van der Sloot, who refuses to speak to Peter.

The broadcast is repeated in 2007, twice, and reaches millions of people.

In the meantime, Joran van der Sloot writes a book, acknowledging his lies, but denying the accusations.

When they finally meet face to face in January 2008, on the tv show ‘Pauw & Witteman’, Joran throws a glass of red wine straight into Peters face, who confronted him with his lies over and over again during the show.

He became really famous when broadcasting undercover movies, of Joran confessing to his partner and friend (or so he believed) Patrick van der Eem.

Months later, after Joran fleed Aruba to live somewhere in Thailand, Peter caught him again in a scheme of trafficking women to the Netherlands.

Of course, as seems to be his trademark, Joran denies all involvement.

Though I’m not a big fan of Peter R. de Vries (sometimes he just looks too smug to me) I can’t deny that, if I ever get kidnapped or killed, I hope he will too start an investigation.