Deleted

[woodcutter]

The set text is what the students will take home with them - and they won't get anywhere if they don't work at home. So I feel it never pays to be too cavalier with the set text, and the structure ought to come from that. OK, you can kill the forests and hog the photocopier, but bosses (I too have met them!) don't like it any more than mother nature does.

[revel]

Good morning all!

Yesterday evening, the sentence was "She doesn't save odds and ends." The task was to choose between "ever" and "never" and then put it in its slot in the sentence, spitting out (in record time) "She doesn't ever save odds and ends." Marian spit out the sentence correctly but got stuck on "save". We'd gone over what "odds and ends" meant in an earlier class, and she asked "Doesn't save mean ahorrar as in to save money ?¿" "Of course," I replied, "but obviously it does not mean that here. You tell me what it means." "Well," she immediately answered, "It must mean guardar." "That's right," I said, "we must always be aware that individual words mean many different things or nothing at all if they are alone! Have to take their context into account!"

So, I find myself giving the context of the word "boss". When I began teaching ESL, my boss was a woman who had been a normal English teacher in a highschool in Brooklyn, who had bought a language agency that offered private language classes (mostly Spanish and English, but really any language anyone called up wanting to learn, even Sanscrit!) and translation services. She was only my boss in that she provided me with clients, a room to give the classes and handed me a check based on a fixed hourly fee that we had agreed on before I began working for her.

In the 23 years that I have taught ESL, I have from time to time counted on the "boss" figure for my own personal, selfish reasons. Maybe it was because I wanted to teach in a place where rooms were provided with blackboards, a teacher's lounge, fellow teachers to have fgbs with after work, etc. Maybe it was because I did not have a telephone and thus could not put my own ad in the paper and have private students ring me up to start classes. Currently I am on "probation" with my residency here in Spain and until I have passed the five years of legal living and they give me my permanent DNI card I can not work for myself since my degree is an MFA in Theatre and not in Teaching, so I need a "boss" who signs a contract and pays me through the bank and pays my social security benefits so that I can take notorized copies of all those papers to the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales every two years to get my renewal approved.

Naturally, for that grand favor my boss does me by making me "official", I do have to kiss some *ss and do silly things like end of term report cards, or Cambridge exam preparation, or keep accurate records of what I've done in class in long-hand instead of my own short-hand (just in case I get hit by a bus, substituing my classes is always much more important than mourning my death.... ) Fortunately, my boss is pretty clear about what he wants from us, and though I might complain about his "boss" facet, the truth is, we actually have a relationship close to what Duncan has commented: "....the relationship should be a cosy symbiosis (in fact, I dream of one day having a boss who works and THINKS harder than I do, but on the same wavelength, and therefore actually anticipates at least some of my needs, rather than ignoring them....": I don't get much of a chance to kiss his *ss, because he is always working it off making sure I have enough work and that that work is more or less suited to who I am and what I do best. I guess I only call him a boss because he signs my pay-check, my real attitude is that we work together, he doing his part and I mine.

Even when one is one's own boss, one has a boss, don't you think?

Consequently, though I don't take offence, I don't at all feel "inferior" or "not a real teacher" just because in the current context of my life I have a figure that I can refer to as a "boss". Having a "boss" actually releases me from a lot of silly responsibility, like that official paperwork, like setting up the classes, like making sure I have materials, like paying for the photocopies. At this time in my teaching life, it's comfortable, I was getting tired of covering the entire city and wearing out shoes going from house to house giving private lessons! Once I've been granted permission to stay in Spain I might just go private once again (if the mortgage permits it!), be my own boss again, maybe even change profession, something I'm dying to do.

peace,
revel.

[LarryLatham]

If you change your profession, or retire, that will be a great loss for Spanish students seeking to learn to use English.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

To make myself clear here, revel, I'd just like to say that I would never try to do what you do, nor would I necessarily recommend it. Most of us could never bring it off the way you do, and would just make a mess of the attempt. Personally, I am much more like your grammar buddy, I think, since I love the grammar and its applications.

But I know a good teacher when I see one. And though I've never actually seen you in action, I believe, through what you've written here in this thread and others here on Dave's, that you must be good at what you do.

Everybody likes that. Everybody enjoys watching the cop directing traffic who really has it mastered. Everybody is thrilled watching the footballer who can take the ball through a determined defense and into the goal. I admire your style, revel, not that I would ever do it myself. And I also find myself nodding in enthusiastic agreement when you say things like: "we must always be aware that individual words mean many different things or nothing at all if they are alone! Have to take their context into account!", and even more enthusiastically when you say to your student, "Of course," , "but obviously it does not mean that here. You tell me what it means." Now that is something I also would say.

Whether you personally enjoy teaching or not, revel, (and I have a great deal of difficulty believing that you do not) students who encounter your class leave the better for it.

Larry Latham

[Sally Olsen]

I am here and reading and reading. Unfortunately I only get 20 minutes of time on the computer these days so my contributions are going to be limited.

In Mongolia, one Russian man interpreter did all the parts of the movie, men and women. Very funny and sometimes completely crazy as of course the interpretion sometimes took more time than the moving mouth of the character. We used to watch terrible movies just to hear these parts and then argue about what was intended.

I would like to think that professional also meant sharing with colleagues so that the whole profession will grow, as everyone has been doing here. Isn't it somewhat like the line, "An unexamined life..." in being professional. Unless we document it in some way, it will be lost. People will say, I had this great teacher but it will die with you if you don't pass on your secrets and have to be invented again. Great that you are putting things down for posterity.

I find that every class is new. What worked in the class before might not work with this class. What worked last year might not work. It is all such an art in deciding what will help with this particular group of individuals but as you learn more about them overtime it gets easier as they contribute and take responsiblity for their part of the class.

I am not blessed with this imitative ability but usually am able to find and encourage a student who can do this. You were so lucky to see the masters at work. It should be interesting as more and more movies take known actors to fill parts in animated movies - they seem to choose an actor known for the type of character protrayed in the animation.

Keep up the good work.

[LarryLatham]

I find that every class is new. What worked in the class before might not work with this class. What worked last year might not work. It is all such an art in deciding what will help with this particular group of individuals but as you learn more about them overtime it gets easier as they contribute and take responsiblity for their part of the class.

I soooooo agree.

Larry Latham

[revel]

Good morning all.

Thanks, Sally, for bringing this thread back to its subject line. However, I'm going to make you wait until my next post (right after this one) for my comments.

I said earlier: "I guess I only call him a boss because he signs my pay-check, my real attitude is that we work together, he doing his part and I mine." That was yesterday, and yesterday I made the same comment to a fellow teacher who, for mysterious reasons of her own, seems a bit bitter towards our shared "boss" and jumped on me saying "No, no, you work for the boss, not at all with him. You do your work and he does his and that's that!" Well, I understand her attitude, though I suspect it is in part responsible for her current disagreeable way of relating to her work and her fellow teachers. I suppose the difference between saying "for" and "with" would be a source of debate here "Which is it...for or with....which is correct?" ( ). However, I highlight again the last part of my statement: "he [is] doing his part and I mine." and on that point, at least, she and I agreed despite the preposition we choose to illustrate our individual concepts of our working relationship with the "boss".

Don't worry, Larry, I'm not giving up the field yet to become an organic vegetable farmer! You're right, after the first two years of suffering and really hating this job, I had to grow up and realize that if I was going to do it I would have to enjoy it and for nearly a quarter of a century (reminded of woodcutter's half a decade comment earlier, ) I have insisted that both the teacher and the students enjoy our time together....it may be work for me but many many students look forward to that hour they spend in my classroom and I have to respect that or nothing gets done and everyone suffers!

peace,
revel.

[revel]

Back to Sally, then,

I see that while I was roaming about the other threads adding my $.02, Larry got to this one before me.

Every class is indeed different and though the material to be taught is always "the same" and the basic ways I try to get that material across is also basically "the same", I have to spend several (usually between two and six) hours with a group to know just what the dynamics are going to be and just how far I can push them.

I have to identify individual strengths and weaknesses and try to group them into a team effort for learning. This goes beyond simply pairing a weak student with a stronger one (to the advantage of both, one learning and the other reviewing through teaching). It is a constant effort to make clear that language does not exist by itself but rather exists because there are other people out there. Even Proust, locked up in his little bedroom with only a window through which to observe the world, probably entertained thoughts of others reading his thoughts. Kafka may well have asked his friend to burn all his works on his death, but he had published during his life so at one point wanted others to read what he thought and took the trouble to note down. I participate in this forum (and not others for the same reasons as Sally, my time is limited, though not as much as her's is! ) because I want others to see what's going on in my mind. I also want to make it clearer for myself, for my students, maybe for my "boss".

It is, so, a pleasure to share these thoughts. At times they are rambling words (like this post) and at times they are heavily structured lesson plans (that give the impression of being a "method" because of their compositional structure). It is, also, a pleasure to not only read comments on my thoughts from others, to enjoy the result of having stimulated other thinking minds, but to read the thoughts of others who bother to think and share the desire to project those thoughts out for the rest of us.

Sooo, Interpretative ESL is, for me, getting the students to use their thoughts, to communicate what they feel as well as what they want, want to say, to eat, to have, to do. Since time is a limiting factor in the equation, have to be pretty focused in the techniques for getting these ideas across, have to give useful homework exercises that students will use outside of class where they will spend most of their time anyway.

Don't know where this is going so will shut up for now before it gets too long and confusing!

peace,
revel.

[Duncan Powrie]

(R)esponding to Duncan's valid concern:
"....why spend so much time working on differing ways to say the one example? Are more than one or two ways valid or useful?"

I haven't been to clear on this yet, mostly because I haven't spoken in this thread on this theme. I believe I began realizing the importance of interpretation of ESL by students when I came upon an exercise in a "Business English" book. It was something like a simple sentence (The door is open) with four or five contexts (Bank manager looking at an empty safe; Boss sitting alone in his office inviting someone to come in who has knocked; Someone with a cold, wrapped in a blanket sitting on the sofa....etc). Naturally, the tone of voice, the emphasis on the different parts of the sentence, would be different in each of these situations. However, that is not an exercise that I use in class, mostly because of what Duncan has pointed out.

I must admit, the recontextualizations of the one sentence in that Business English book are imaginative, and would certainly help make students aware that yes, they can alter their voice and emotions in speaking a foreign language.

I also have noted that revel has said: "that is not an exercise that I use in class, mostly because of what Duncan has pointed out."

But I'd still like to add a few more thoughts:

In practising the differing ways of saying the "same" thing, however, they aren't learning differing ways of saying differing things, and are thus not expanding their vocabularies as much as they could (it could be argued that the boss upon seeing the open door would be more likely to quickly check the vault and get onto shouting the unambiguous, "Call the police! We've been robbed!"; and that the person with the cold would growl or croak, "Shut the d*mn door, can't you see I'm dying?!". The only totally apt use of "The door's open" is in the invitation to enter, which I would guess formed the genesis for the whole activity. It would probably be more useful to contrast this core sentence with "Come in"!).

Which brings me back to my original concern, but now expanded slightly in light of the above: Are more than one or two ways of saying a unique sentence valid or useful?". That is, once we consider and possibly accept that "The door's open!" is probably most likely an invitation, we can soon see that only one intonation pattern is going to convey that function. Of course, if we are teaching policemen or surveillance experts, we might want to have them whispering over walkie-talkies about doors being open, rather than have them saying it like inviting bosses (can't think of many more convincing uses for this sentence), but these two distinct situations do not have to use the same sentence at all...all of which implies considering specificity of prosody in coming up with specific exponents, both in relation to specific needs. And on it goes...

BTW how would you guys say "We've been robbed" if you were a bank manager? I imagine one, at most two ways...one of concern, one of sobbing, almost total breakdown. I hope most bank managers are made of stronger stuff than to opt for the latter!

[LarryLatham]

In practising the differing ways of saying the "same" thing, however, they aren't learning differing ways of saying differing things, and are thus not expanding their vocabularies as much as they could (it could be argued that the boss upon seeing the open door would be more likely to quickly check the vault and get onto shouting the unambiguous, "Call the police! We've been robbed!"; and that the person with the cold would growl or croak, "Shut the d*mn door, can't you see I'm dying?!". The only totally apt use of "The door's open" is in the invitation to enter, which I would guess formed the genesis for the whole activity. It would probably be more useful to contrast this core sentence with "Come in"!).

Which brings me back to my original concern, but now expanded slightly in light of the above: Are more than one or two ways of saying a unique sentence valid or useful?". That is, once we consider and possibly accept that "The door's open!" is probably most likely an invitation, we can soon see that only one intonation pattern is going to convey that function. Of course, if we are teaching policemen or surveillance experts, we might want to have them whispering over walkie-talkies about doors being open, rather than have them saying it like inviting bosses (can't think of many more convincing uses for this sentence), but these two distinct situations do not have to use the same sentence at all...all of which implies considering specificity of prosody in coming up with specific exponents, both in relation to specific needs. And on it goes...

If revel (or anyone else) was advancing the notion of spending a semester exploring the myriad various ways in which one could say, "The door is open", and perhaps nine other sentences, then you'd have an argument I could agree with, Duncan.

But he's not. He is, however, suggesting that student learners of English have a tendency to (1) speak in a sort of monotone, and (2) focus on a word-by-word interpretation of meaning in sentences. Ask youself, "Teacher, what does it mean?", and then answer the question the way you usually do. If you always answer this way, are you giving your students the whole truth? Revel is helping his students to understand that what it means is dependent not only on what the words themselves mean, but also the context in which they are used, and also the manner in which they are uttered. This, I believe, is valuable stuff.

Of course, one could overdo it. It would not be useful to do this to the exclusion of other important things, like vocabulary development, alternative constructions, grammatical skill development, etc. But many teachers never do anything at all of this sort, and revel's point, I think, is that those teachers may be leaving out something of substance.

Don't you agree with that?

Larry Latham

[revel]

Good morning, all, and Larry and Duncan (and Sally if you got your 20 minutes today, and lorikeet because I know you're watching, and woodcutter who I hope hasn't taken offense at my replicas to his comments, etc...)

Well, Larry, we are on line at the same time so often, it's almost like having you at the terminal in the next study carol. You've beaten me to my reply (I have to review earlier posts to get the through line before I am able to get my thoughts straight) and your words are nearly mine.

Duncan, I agree, I don't see much use in sitting on one sentence for twelve different meanings. As Larry said, and as I've said as well, this type of exercise is good for making the student aware of those items such as context, tone of voice, fluctuation of register, expression of emotional value; however, it is merely complimentary, I myself can't see it as a focus for even one class objective. Once an exercise of this type is done it becomes a reference point for those repetitive moments when students are immitating Sir Hawkins' mechanical voice producer, a normal byproduct of many of the drill-like structural manipulation exercises that often form a basis for my teaching.

Four of us are "team-teaching" a "Comercial" English class this term. Each of us has one hour with 16 adults who think they need English in order to work better. Three of those teachers will be "plodding" through a textbook with a title like "Working In English" or some such. The book will give the students a sense of graded accomplishment in vocabulary and usage, as well as convince them that they are really learning "Comercial" English. My part in this team effort will be what we all refer to as the "Tap Dance Lessons."

These students will all be pretty much of a pre-intermediate level, that having been determined through the results of a standardized grammar test that they take before being admitted to the course. Of the forty or so who took this test, the 16 with the best scores have been creamed off to make up the "student body". Their scores were, in general, 20 correct questions out of 40. I have my doubts about this way of building a class, but it is an administrative decision and has little to do with what I will end up doing in class. If one of those students speaks English well I will be surprized.

And even if one student speaks English well, I know that student will share many of the same problems as his/her classmates. Those problems are usually structural, most often pronunciation, always difficulty with self-confidence when improvising. That will be the student who comes to class with a list of minimal pairs like "Which should I say, in the chair or on the chair?" That student is often the one who brings to light the need for interpretative work in the classroom. The rest of the students will need to wrap their lips around basic structures, learn to substitute, learn to make certain linguistic aspects habit. Acquiring a habit is usually the result of repetition. Repetition can be pretty dull if it is not done well. Soooo....

Tap dance. Sing the B I N G O song. Throw a rubber chicken around the room. Share 60's war protest songs. Bring role-plays to life by making the students do them on their feet instead of seated with their partner. Make them imagine their "perfect job" and have them come to your agency where you have the connections to make their dream a reality. Do an entire exercise in slow motion. Use hand and arm and face gestures to get them to open their mouths and stretch their lips and stick their tongues out. Get a mirror.

Like most, the new term is taking away from me the time that I have been spending on this forum. I owe you all several more "lesson-plans" on this subject but don't know when they'll be available. And as so often happens (unless the theme is "on" vs "in") this thread may get buried under other, new, debatable themes (such as "on" vs "at"). I hope not, but it does seem to be the nature of things.

And I've been going on too long here. At least that nice "role-play" planning will come into good use for a fellow teacher who is doing the team-teach with me. Don't know if he'll use it, but at least he will be aware what the other teacher is doing in the "Tap Dance" class.

peace,
revel.

[Duncan Powrie]

Hi again Larry.

I thought I had made it quite clear that I was only adding some thoughts about the activity that revel had, in passing, mentioned (and made clear he did not use); I was obviously not advancing the notion that revel (or anyone else) has ever spent, or will ever spend, or has ever said anyone should spend, an entire semester exploring (with students) the myriad ways in which one could say a single sentence. That would be a ridiculous thing for anyone to do or say (not that it stopped you!), so I would hardly be accusing him of having said or recommended or done that (and I think if you read back through my other posts in this thread, I have never said that or even implied it).

No, I am simply interested the activity itself; that is, in the language that activities do and don't contain, and the implications of using them even once (yes, even once!) in our teaching - what are they ultimately going to achieve? Do they fit in complement our beliefs and chosen approach? I, and I guess woodcutter are among the few who actually make noises intimating that we wouldn't be comfortable using such and such an activity, for what are to us sound reasons (which, even if you don't agree with them, or think they are somehow insulting to you and your best buddy, you might at least appear to try to appreciate rather than not even address).

For example, at its simplest, AGAIN, we could compare that activity in which we change the prosody of a single sentence and recontextualize it, with one in which we would start with two differing (and thus necessarily already contextualized) sentences. I am not sure which approach would be clearer or more "fun" for students, and at the end of the day both will teach them two differing prosodies; only one, however, will have taught them two differing sentences containing differing words, sentences that I think will ultimately be more appreciated and effective due to their very uniqueness and all-round integrity. (Integrity is a very important thing, a keyword that I always strive to uphold and realize).

But of course, I do also appreciate that in principle/theory, a sentence could have two differing prosodies and thus meanings (I would still feel more comfortable, however, with teaching students to simply "say what they mean" - simplistic as that sounds - most of the time, and would hope the prosody would take care of itself; only if it didn't would I prod and nudge just a little in the right direction).

I am also very interested in the expectations that teachers have of their students, and how far these are achievable or even fair (I am talking here about the wisdom and ethics of trying to make them become more "like us fun, clever native speakers").

I would refer you back to Lewis: he said something like "X means Y here", and that is what I would say to students who asked me what something in the input meant. I would only say it could mean something when there is genuine ambiguity or scope for differing interpretations and meanings (receptively speaking), to avoid confusing or overloading the students; production would presumably proceed best on the basis of, and in more or less strict reference to, the input.

[LarryLatham]

I was obviously not advancing the notion that revel (or anyone else) has ever spent, or will ever spend, or has ever said anyone should spend, an entire semester exploring (with students) the myriad ways in which one could say a single sentence. That would be a ridiculous thing for anyone to do or say (not that it stopped you!), so I would hardly be accusing him of having said or recommended or done that (and I think if you read back through my other posts in this thread, I have never said that or even implied it).

Now, don't get your fur ruffled, Duncan. I certainly never meant to insult you nor to misrepresent what you might have said earlier. My point is merely that I might agree with you IF you were countering someone who had made such a claim.

and I guess woodcutter are among the few who actually make noises intimating that we wouldn't be comfortable using such and such an activity, for what are to us sound reasons (which, even if you don't agree with them, or think they are somehow insulting to you and your best buddy, you might at least appear to try to appreciate rather than not even address).

Oh my, the fur's really flying now! I guess you must think I am getting personal with my criticism. Not at all, Dunc. I hope you realize, somewhere deep down, how much I admire your knowledge and respect your experience and skill.

Here, in this case, though, I guess the problem is that I really don't know what your assertions are. Maybe I'm just dense, but somehow I'm getting the idea that you don't like revel's exercises in working with students to learn about saying the same simple sentence in different ways for different meanings and effects. Even revel has discounted these exercises to some extent, but I think they can be eye-opening for students who, as we all have seen time and time again, tend to grasp meaning word-by-word.

From your posts here, I understood that you thought time spent with exercises like revel's was time wasted, when you could just as easily work with other sentences, introducing new words and new prosody. Do I get your meaning right, or am I misunderstanding your position?

I am saying that I don't agree with your position as I understand it. It's not that I don't believe it's valuable to constantly bring new material into class...of course I do. There's nothing wrong with what you suggest (at least, as I understand it), but I think you are overlooking the value of working with students using old material in new ways to create new meanings. I think revel's exercises raise student awareness in important ways which I don't think your exercises do (though I'll admit I didn't quite understand exactly how your suggestions work, from what you said about them).

Perhaps prosody is not as important as I think it is. I note that you mentioned you think prosody can take care of itself. Mebbe so, although I have some reservation about that, but if so, then I think only if students are made aware of prosody. It seems to me that people who may be delightfully animated in their L1 are often completely unaware of the role of prosody in L2. Given enough time with the L2, I suppose you are right--if students become reasonably fluent, the uses of prosody will begin to dawn on them. But I'm looking to jump-start their awareness of it.

Larry Latham

[Duncan Powrie]

I guess you don't get really involved in "academic" debate unless it's to do with the language specifically (especially modality and the verb phrase!), Larry...so maybe I should be clearer, and shift the emphasis from general activities to the language itself.

I will admit I don't know nearly enough about prosody, and what little there is seems of use mainly in stressing the "mistaken" item in a repeated "correction" (e.g. when on the phone in China I always had to shout "no, not seven, but ONE" in giving my return number to those "BP-ji" phone operators); you can also refer back to the "Function of rising tags" threads I kicked off to see how uncomfortable I am with this area of teaching generally. (As an aside, I am really tired of "ship" vs. "sheep" pronunciation activities, at least when teacher-led - I have perfect pronunciation for Japanese students, it seems ).

So I am often quite wary of many activities, especially when they are supplementing a so-so textbook. "Awareness-raising" to me is only a finger pointing to the moon, it is not the moon itself, and I am just intimating that I want to give students the moon so they will be "over it".

Now, of course, the moon is a big place, and to explore it will require a range of equipment and repeated missions (I am sure you can work out what "missions" equals in my analogy here), it's just I don't get much excited by current space exploration because I personally can't see where it is going and don't feel much "involved" in the planning (in Columbus's time I'd 've been the guy who feared to set sail to the New World lest he get skinned alive by the natives, instead I stayed behind and got burnt at the stake by the Inquisition or something ). I often don't see (on paper at least) what the sum of the parts is, is all, and not many books try to make you aware of their "scope" (beyond the similar marketing blurbs on the back covers).

Whilst revel is blasting off to chart Brave New Worlds (and honestly, good luck to him and his students!), I am left at the crossroads, looking at maps and charts and trying to plot a clear trajectory to that moon! Once I get my bearings, I will set a course and not look back so much.

So, you got it right about me, Larry, except one thing: I don't think I have much skill yet, because I have held back on "experiencing" things "fully", in light of my still-limited and accruing knowledge base. That is probably as plain an admission as you will ever find on Dave's.

[revel]

Good morning all!

Is it that evident that I was an avid fan of Star Trek?

However, I don't think I'm really charting New Worlds but rather demonstrating old ones.

In preping students for the "dreaded" Oxford Exams (read: I don't like them at all) I do a number of classes based on the suggested vocabulary list provided. There must be, oh, I'd say, more or less 500 words on this list, and according to Oxford, they are words that the student presenting him/herself to the exam ought to know. Our first run on this list brings in a general 50% knowledge of the chosen words. In our second run, that 50% unknown pretty well remains unknown, it's just a list anyway, and since I've not asked the students to memorize it with its meanings, they haven't "learned" anything new, though from the first run through they have been made aware of the "meanings" of those 250 new words. According to Oxford, that's not the moon, it's the back yard.

It is only when they see how those words are plugged into the sample exams that we plod through for about two months before the actual exam date that they begin to "remember" them. So, though they all seem to know what "see" is all about, they don't use "watch" until they have connected it up with "football match" or "TV"; "the children" is not an option on the test, though evidently one in "real life". So, even the words they do know are not usually the ones they need for the test. Sigh!

What I am doing in class is not at all new. It has been used in all the arts for as long as arts have existed. One thing is to paint a wall, let's say, white. Another thing is to paint that same wall with a number of colors to represent, let's say, the last supper. Even so, even with all the skill and art that gave "The Last Supper" its universal perpetual art, the artist made a mistake and used the wrong materials, so that in short time the paint was peeling, the faces blurred, the monks cut a door through the lower part of a masterpiece, mistaking it for "bathroom art".

To a certain extent all musicians plunk their way through scales when they are first learning to manipulate their intsrument. The great ones learn to communicate using those scales (take Philip Glass, for example, who only seems to write scales, which can seem repetitive until you hear the closing song of "Satchigraha" which is a lovely hymn to peace and cooperation with only eight ascending notes....) How many times does a dancer step on his/her partner's foot before resembling a dying swan? How many times does a footballer hit the post instead of the net?

What I do is not even that new in Language Arts. Perhaps I was lucky, perhaps my LA teacher was the only one who insisted that we don't stop at the end of each line while reading poetry, that the words in quotes are spoken texts that should be read with feeling, that the best way to enrich one's vocabulary is through reading good books and not through plodding through vocabulary books. Applying the teachings of my ballet teacher, my guitar teacher, my LA teacher and my many instructers in the vast art that is Theatre to my ESL classes does make them fun, does help fill in the gaps, does help get the students to stop repeating the scales and begin singing out the language. Up to now I've only given a little, eensey weensey part of what I do in class, thanks to the objections I read here I am beginning to see just how much more I need to make my ways clearer.

Or perhaps not. So many have admitted that they would not do it my way and that I understand completely, since I would not do it their way either and yet all ways must exist since there is not just one way. I have to be honest and say that, sharing this information with you all is more to my own benefit than yours. I am not giving a list of "ten activities with post-it notes" (a good post by the way that has enlightened me with half a dozen applicable activities for some of my classes) but rather have (successfully?) opened a debate on individual creativity in the classroom, demonstrating how I've been creative and looking forward to reading about the creativity of others, under the general heading of "Interpretative ESL". I think it's been interesting for all of us. So, again, thanks all!

peace,
revel.