Job Discussion Forums

[Steppenwolf]

[vikdk]

thwack - something hard just landed on my head - I'm seeing stars - did somebody answer my question

[poopsicola]

What Steppenwolf has said is an important point, Vikdk, if what he says is true. If you have no proper teacher training and experience, you would be better to remain silent and learn from those who do possess these things. That was always one of my beefs with that old windbag, Roger. He had no degree, no teacher training. He'd done a certificate in Agronomy, had a high school certificate and usually passed off one or two seminars he conducted in Agronomy as "teacher training". It was always so disappointing to see him pontificating on subjects of which he was essentially ignorant. Still, he meant well I guess - as, no doubt, you do. His demise was sudden and unfortunate. Sad to say, rumour has it that one of his old flames poisoned his Beaujolais. This may not be true. However, back to the point. You would be well advised to listen to such advice as Steppenwolf and others may give you if you are a newcomer without qualification or training. This forum need not just be a place of chat. It can also be a place of learning and self-development.

[GS1981]

That's a good idea, Steppenwolf: I've been introduced to this idea before on my CELTA course, variations (on the groups theme) included mix and match activities as controlled practise of verbs, before getting them to pin verbs/words up in the correct category on the classroom wall, useful for words with a million applications like 'get'.

Another good one for advanced classes was putting up timelines around the wall, and getting the students to fit the correct sentence and type of verb to the timeline. Actually pretty tricky!

These are just a few of many potential variations on this activity.

I guess with a large class you might have to keep an eye on people cheating, only way round this would be to give them a different activity each, maybe something related to a listening/reading material? maybe you could use a text taken down using the method you described earlier. (what is the 'technical' name for that? my lingo has got a bit rusty lately)

It was suggested on my CELTA course that we leave grammar points on the walls for the students as a reminder once they are put up in the correct place. Where do they stand in China with sticking things on the walls?

[vikdk]

wow my head is still ringing - I can't remember if I'm qualified - so since I'm probally a complete novice I'd better shut about trying to discuss the pro and cons of all that memorisation/recital malarky. And GS1981 all that mixing and matching of words sounds ok - not a hint of memorisation or recital there .............. shizer I gotta duck - another thunderbolt flying my way - I'd better just learn to keep my gob shut

[GS1981]

vikdk- (assuming that last remark you made was a little sarcastic: it's so hard to tell with internet text ) I think you may be missing the point of this exercise. By asking the kids to read the text and report back to their groups, the kid who is 'reporting' has to use their reading and speaking skills. The rest have to use their listening skills. By cycling the 'reporter' through the group, each of the children is getting a chance to practise.

Also, it encourages peer correction by the 'reporting child', s/he may be asked to define spelling of certain words, something which ALL students (IMHO) need practise on, at the very least up to upper int level. It also is condusive to a quieter class, as competitive kids will want to listen in/not give away the answers to other groups. As for producing the language, that should come with discussion of the order of the sentences, admittedly you need to make sure they don't all resort to L1 at that point.

Finally, this exercise would be unlikely to constitute a whole lesson (I would have thought), perhaps more suitable for revision/warmer/ controlled practise as a lead up to a freer activity: i.e if the text to be ordered was a letter, you would have brought attention to the order in which information appears within a letter, and at the end of the exercise you should then have a model on which the students could base a letter of their own (a nice touch at this point may be to get the groups to write to each other)

Hope that answers your objections?

One question though, any ideas for error correction in a large class, seeing as it's implausible to hear 50-odd letters?

[vikdk]

[sheeba]

Stephen Wolf's idea is one that I often use . It works well with big classes . I get them to find information for certain questions and then return to their partner . Their partner asks them the questions . It adds communication to standard ways of extracting answers and focuses the attention on student to student interaction which is what we should be aiming for in large classes.. I have also done this with kids classes(8 years olds) from Europe . Works a treat .

Something else you can think about is lessons where the class share information . Also use tape recorders (you'll need 6 or 7 but they're cheap here) and get students to do listening in different groups . The students then have to find out from other groups what they were listening to .

Today I worked on something too . Write on the board - Please speak slower ,Please spell that , Please say that again ,What was the word before ----- and so on . Tell the students a story and get them to use these commands . Purposely speak fast , mumble so they have to demand you to speak slower or stop mumbling . Then when the students communicate with one another in any exercise get them to demand that they understand their partner . This is very important in our classes . I cringe when I see pairs that should be communicating speaking to the air or mumbling to themself.

[GS1981]

First of all, if the kids aren't used to language construction, isn't it about time that somebody tried to make them aware of it?

Secondly, the whole 'memory' problem, if it's on the wall, all they have to do is go back to it and re-read it if they forgot part of it: I don't really see what is so bad about that?

As for Krashen, I did a quick search for some info on his arguments and turned this up:

'The term "whole language" does not refer only to providing interesting, comprehensible texts and helping children understand less comprehensible texts. It involves instilling a love of literature, problem-solving and critical thinking, collaboration, authenticity, personalized learning, and much more (Goodman, Bird, and Goodman, 1991). In terms of the process of literacy development, however, the Comprehension Hypothesis is a central part of whole language.'


However Krashen accepts that of vital importance are the texts themselves:

'Whole language has not failed. If it is defined, in part, as providing children with comprehensible and interesting texts, and helping children understand them, it has done extremely well.'

taken from Has Whole language teaching failed? by Stephen Krashen

So i suppose it comes down to what you define as 'comprehensible and interesting texts'. But of course this will differ from class to class, and it is necessary to grade literature at a suitable level to the class: i.e you are not going to lay the smack down on a bunch of pre-schoolers with the theory of relativity

Any half decent teacher should be prepared to consider the level and interest of a text when presenting it to a class, so again, I don't really see the problem.

To be honest, I don't really see anything in Krashen's view that contradicts this activity in a lesson

I still don't see how this activity is a waste of time, but I'm probably missing the point though, so feel free to point out where I'm going wrong...

Sheeba> ace idea!

[vikdk]

[no_exit]

In practice, this activity works well with middle school students (aged 13+). The entire activity should take 15, 20 minutes tops, and you wouldn't do it all the time, only when appropriate. I've used it when I was teaching punctuation, as part of the activity is getting the students to use words like "comma," "full stop," "quotation marks," etc. and I've found the activity is quite good for that. It isn't just about memorization either, as it is a listening activity for the partner who is doing the writing (who must make sure he gets everything that is being said), and a speaking activity for the reporter (who must speak clearly in order to be understood).

I used to do it by posting the passage outside the door, and one partner would go outside while the other stayed in -- we called it "Running Dictation." The memorization isn't even really a vital part of the activity, so it is funny that you should focus on that part vik, basically the running back and forth just make it more exciting and add a competitive element to the activity. The same things could be accomplished by having one kid simply read the passage to the other (the speaking and listening practice), but it wouldn't be nearly as fun.

[klaus]

i'm with vik. this sort of "activity" nonsense is a ridiculous waste of time and the resort of those who don't know what theyre doing or don't give a rats ...not that there's anything wrong with either of those conditions...

both of which would only be exacerbated by propounding the vapid "theories" of that linguistic nincompoop Krashen .... spare us please

[Outsida]

Well, Klaus, you have all the answers, right? Can you back it up? Seriously, can you give us just ONE solid idea that we could use, in our classes, that dovetails with your philosophy? Just ONE. Please don't make excuses, or act snotty, just set out the details of ONE teaching idea that is pedagogically solid and works for you.

Just asking you to back up your words. Thanks.

[poopsicola]

Shame on you, outsida, for asking what you ask. Anthony is a theoretician. As such, he is not concerned with practicalities. You must ask elsewhere.

[2 over lee]

poopsicola wrote: