We are having a kind of share out session right now among the middle school faculty with Mark as the moderator. I am noticing that the people who are currently sharing out right now, if I look deeply, don’t really care so much about what their points are as much as they want the eyes of […]
Mark is in his second session now and has referenced the vomit Spanish class again. I have to say something, a new insight into what we are really in fact up against: Traditional teachers who are good at it can really lay a very impressive layer of “this is good teaching” down. I cannot believe
A few Mark Church points of value this morning. In a story of “work for work” (not actual learning): …the goal of school is the completion of work done for someone else…. …the larger purpose behind activities isn’t always clear. Thus, assignments become ends in themselves…. …grades are the pay off/outcome for work done…. …doing
Mark Church is consulting here at the American Embassy School today. He is actually giving his first (full faculty) session right now. As part of his session, he showed a ten minute video of a Spanish teacher giving a traditional lesson and is now asking the faculty questions about the admittedly gifted teacher. I don’t expect Mark
I am of the concerted opinion that most if not all talk about education has no value. It’s just mental bullshit. It is about as valuable as merely talking about language acquisition. So for the next few months I am going to write less here, if that is possible for me, and videotape my classes more,
TPRS teachers, in spite of their high intentions to align with Dr. Krashen’s theories, conduct many of their classes in ways that activate and engage the conscious minds of their students. Since this is what school is largely all about, this is not a surprise. If it is true that TPRS teachers are largely unable to instruct
Steven shares on Scope and Sequence: I want to say this to my fellow teachers in my district plus admin: My students can meet and SURPASS all of my California world language standards with TPRS/CI according to their levels. You want S and S? See my agenda for the day or my “lesson plan” book
The idea of CI teachers teaching grammar for ten minutes a day was floated by Zach Al Moreno of the American Embassy School in New Delhi. It was suggested as a way to placate the grammar instructors and honor the Scope and Sequence model currently (outmoded but) in place in our school. The idea was
What Claire says below is pure gold. It is needed right now. I find it most refreshing to see it made clear that a Scope and Sequence need not be what it was, and that it can evolve into something bigger: The scope and sequence of a foreign or second language classroom should focus on the
Eric made this comment here yesterday re: Scope and Sequence: …explain that there is such a thing as a “retroactive” or “a posteriori” syllabus. And you could list (maybe even order) on that syllabus the types of stories you do. But syllabi should stop being lists of grammar and vocabulary…. …you can give her last
Stephen Cook and I and a student this morning were excitedly talking about the huge possibilities with the Invisible creatures. (Stephen is an ELA teacher here who gets TPRS and wants to work it into his instructional program.) Stephen is in Room 311 of the American Embassy Middle School. As we continued our wonderful conversation,
OK hold the phone. In the last post I said that it is impossible to mix a Scope and Sequence document with TPRS. Zach Al Moreno has changed my mind. He suggested that if we teach just 10 min. of grammar every day, we could fulfill the requirements of any S and S document, especially
