Sildenafil + Tadalafil più economico senza prescrizione medica Quanto tempo per Sildenafil + Tadalafil generico per lavorare? Comprare Sildalis online Acquistare Sildalis Sildenafil + Tadalafil
Stendra Super Force generico all’ingrosso Valutazione 4.6 sulla base di 352 voti. Nome del prodotto: Stendra Super Force Categoria: Disfunzione Erettile Nome commerciale: Extra Super
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!
Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.
Unlock with Patreon
16 thoughts on “David Maust Video”
I love these structures and this script. I think it’s an excellent example of “backward scripting” (just made that up) from a target novel or reading.
The beauty is that is doesn’t feel trite. It feels like a script kids will enjoy.
I’ll watch the video in its entirety soon and if I notice anything worth saying I’ll add more. But mostly I plan on watching simply to learn from you.
Actually just to be clear backwards scripting is a term we use that means exactly that. You can see that it is a good idea. Ideally we take target vocabulary from a novel or song or poem or anything we want to teach and, by isolating and targeting those structures from those texts, we come up with something interesting. My issue, and we discussed this a week ago here, is that stories are not as powerful when they are first being tied to a set of targets. They are most powerful when the story or the song or the poem drives the choice of structures, which Tripp and Matava do.
I agree Ben. I would say that most of the time stories always work best when they are not vocabulary-driven. This goes along with something I think we all would agree with: that language itself is NOT vocabulary driven, but rather people / idea / relationship driven instead. The first is artificial, the second is real. The first relegates language to an academic exercise, the second is real language, real communication. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been said before here, but I see this principle at work in scripted and backwards scripted stories too.
However, after having used Matava and Tripp for three years now and having tried writing my own scripts for three years too, I think I’m getting better at backwards scripting stories. Matava and Tripp are great teachers and so are the kids. Once Maurice Sendack (Where the Wild Things Are) said that kids are the toughest critics there are; if they don’t like a book, they won’t tell you politely that it was nice, they will throw it against the wall and say it’s crap. So the kids are pretty honest with letting me know if my story is good or bad. I’ve had a lot of duds, but over these past three years I’m learning what makes a story a good, even if I am choosing vocab from an existing story.
For this story, it was a little lucky that the structures lent themselves well to making a story script, but in some ways I was just copying what was already going on in the Abraham story. There was an agreement and obeying and something would be increased because of the obedience. That’s a story my kids could relate to, so I basically made a parallel story, just keeping the script simple so the kids could easily give cute answers.
But I think as we enter into storytelling more and more, we become storytellers and we learn how to craft a good story. I’ve been reminded this year that kids can connect to texts as well as in-class-asked stories because of what Robert Harrell said sometime back:
“I know we have trash talked the textbooks that “personalize” the grammar by presenting “Ricardo” and “María” (or “Yves” and “Solange” / “Franz” and “Katja”) and their activities. What do students care about them? Yet, the problem isn’t really with having characters not from the class. After all, thousands (millions?) of people care passionately about “the boy who lived” and a certain “hobbit who lived in a hole in the ground” and other fictitious characters that they didn’t create. What’s the difference? I think it’s the fact that Ricardo et al. never become “real” because 1) they never do anything except generic, bland “stuff” that allows the publisher to use that long list of vocabulary words and 2) they have no personality, no quirks.”
David,
Thank you very much for sharing your video.
First thing I noticed is how relaxed you have become as a teacher and that is so refreshing b/c it allows you to deliver the language and have fun at the same time. I remember that first video you posted at the beginning of the year. Back then you sounded much more tensed. Very nice metamorphosis David!
In my opinion, fun is a necessity, without which this work would be so dry.
It’s the only way to do it. Fun is contagious and when kids feel you are having fun they buy into it so much more. At least that’s what I have observed personally in my own practice.
It is just AMAZING to hear spoken Latin , simply amazing. I found myself relying on my French to try and understand what’s going on and it worked, although I like how you check for comprehension often enough that one cannot get lost.
Very refreshing to see that you still use gesturing , I know that is something you do consistently and well.
I too can’t do this work without gesturing . I need to use my hands along with my voice. And sitting and watching you in the shoes of a student, I can appreciate how helpful it is. It really helps with comprehension.
It is apparent that you have fostered an atmosphere of fun and work, two necessary ingredients for great community building in which learning can and does occur.
Amazes me that these kids can hear and understand spoken Latin. I can’t express how truly amazing that is. I hope many people will see this video and appreciate this.
Congratulations David, awesome work. You are truly contributing to the promotion of the revival of the Latin Language!
Sabrina,
Thank you! You are always so encouraging and I really appreciate hearing your perspective as a “student” watching the video.
And thanks for noticing that we are having fun too. These students I have had for 3 and 4 years. They have been with me since the beginning of my attempts to start speaking Latin in class and using TPRS so we also have a special bond because of that. We enjoy just being in the same classroom together – sometimes that means we share some English stories too, but like you said, that bond and fun-factor needs to be there for any of this to work.
Gratias ago! -David
This is something that I struggle with. I think what we are saying here is that we pick a story and then choose the vocabulary based on that story. Is that correct? I am not quite sure which words are “powerful” and which ones are “lame.” We have stories in our book, but they are driven by a set of vocabulary. Is this the “real” set or the “lame” set?
I think David’s point is that this ability to tell the difference between “real” and “lame” structures comes with time and trial and error.
Hmm…I guess this is something that has to be acquired vs. learned. I struggle to find structures of my own that aren’t lame. I guess experience teaches us.
Jeff you are a PLC Teacher of the Month. I think you were the first one. But when I read like what you wrote above right there I would have to nominate you for 2013 PLC Teacher of the Year because of the level of unparalleled self-scrutiny you display.
What you wrote above there is true, in my view:
…as long as I am delivering CI, then I guess I am doing it correctly….
Now, as you stand on the top of the cliff overlooking the chasm, you realize that your mind has already made the jump over to the other side but your body is still standing back on the side from which you jumped.
You need to get you some trust and leap the rest of you the rest of the way to the new location on the other side of the chasm, which most teachers won’t do, if they even see the chasm once in their careers.
Let’s look at what David said on this thread:
…I tend to forget to some degree what class has what vocabulary….
After a few years you know in the moment if the students have a word or not. It’s very intuitive. When I watched Blaine do stories (he used to come to Denver a lot back in the day) I was always amazed at how he just seemed to know what they knew and didn’t know.
In class, if there is a halting response to a word when it occurs in the CI, as opposed to that visible look in their faces that they have in fact acquired it, that “auditory focus” that we identified here about three months ago James, then we have to get more reps on that. We just get more reps.
How can anyone keep track of that process, which is unconscious and varies according to each child? All we can really do is “feel” whether they have it or not and if it doesn’t feel solid we go and get more reps on it. We let acquisition happen instead of forcing it to happen by choosing structures.
Let’s say it’s April and you have a list of targeted words that have been the subject of the CI you’ve done from August. (To me, the form of the CI matters little – CWB, stories, reading, etc.). Just a few days ago I made the point that no matter how much CI we do, we cannot say that in the 125 hours of CI we have available to us each year that the kids have truly acquired them. We wrongly think that because we have done lots of CI with them, they have acquired those words. Some have, some haven’t.
Among those words originally targeted in August, some kids have some of them, a very few have all (rare), a few have some, most have a few, etc. They probably have acquired (defined as instant or near instant recognition aurally and in reading) some but not all.
Much of what determines acquisition has nothing to do with how well we do CI. It often depends on if they have a stable family, are getting sleep, are not working until midnight like many of my own students, if they want to learn the language, if they didn’t get bullied on their way to class, if they just ended a relationship, if their dad just got deported, if their aunt is in the hospital, if they have no money, if they can’t see the board because they can’t afford glasses, etc.
So we often assume that something has been acquired because we did “some” CI (from 50 to 250 or so reps) and that is not a safe assumption.
Therefore, in the sentence:
…I tend to forget to some degree what class has what vocabulary….
we don’t know as a fact that who has what. And so I just say let the stories drive the structures and let the CI roll and give the Natural Order Hypothesis it’s due. Rock you some Krashen. I rock me some Krashen every day and haven’t been fired yet!
OK starting to ramble but you know that we are all four percenters who have left the barn to run free and we better remember that this stuff, this subject matter that is the focus of our profession, is not possible to teach in the real sense bc we need 18,000 hours and have 500 hour.
So we either need to quit our jobs or quit expecting impossible results, now that we are just now here on this PLC starting to see the truth that a language can neither be taught nor acquired in 500 hours – not even close. We either need to quit our jobs and find something we CAN do, if we are that in need of validation by results, or we can stop expecting results that are impossible. We can trust that language will happen with enough CI or we can drive ourselves crazy with expectations and lists.
I see your points here Ben, and I agree, especially that we need to set ourselves realistic expectations and that just because we repeat words over and over doesn’t mean they will be acquired.
If only it were that easy, for us just to get the reps and then the words would be acquired, but, like you say, we know that not all kids will acquire all words: maybe they aren’t paying attention, maybe other things are on their minds, maybe their subconscious brains know that there’s an “academic exercise” going on and they refuse to be a part of it.
So I have been thinking about what a class would look like with no vocabulary driving it. I was thinking about it in relation to how my own two kids of 3 and 5 learn language, because that’s the easiest thing I can think of to compare it to.
Most of the time my own kids learn language because of things that interesting to them, so in this situation they are choosing the vocab. I would compare this to CWB. In class, I’m not trying to choose vocab for an activity like this and I can tell the students sense that.
But frequently, I also read to my own kids, or tell them a story, and when I do this, I’m choosing the vocab and I have to explain some of it because it is new for them and specific to the story. I compare this to the story scripts and novellas in class.
And my own kids find the books we read and the stories I tell very interesting – in fact I would say that I can’t draw much of a distinction between our spontaneous language, and when I read to them or tell them stories. There is usually a lot of spontaneous language along with the reading or storytelling.
I think one thing to note is that usually there is not much new vocabulary in this reading or storytelling, and I notice for my 3 year old, that if we are reading something with too many unfamiliar words (or not many pictures, because she would rather often discuss those), she gets up and starts doing something else more of interest to her. My 5 year old can hang with the more advanced reading, or subjects that he is less familiar with.
So I’m not sure what all I take away from this for the classroom. My first impression is that having more CWB type activities might make for a better balance of CI in class. Maybe doing more CWB type activities, especially in the first year? Maybe with more “spontaneous language time,” such as CWB offers, the story scripts and reading will be more comprehensible and interesting? And PQA, it’s kind of between CWB and story scripts – vocab is driving it, but so are students.
I also see where your mention of “intuition” on what vocab the students know and don’t know helps the whole process out. I know my own kids intimately well, and know instantly when they don’t know a word or idea – and in a similar way I know my students like this too, I just have to be present with them (and create a safe place for us all to be present in class with the discipline, routines, clear expectations of behavior and general human-ness too).
I guess the best bet is just keep the CI train moving, no matter what it is, be human, create that space for the conversation and trust the process. I can tell that when I start trusting the process then the kids do too.
…so I have been thinking about what a class would look like with no vocabulary driving it….
It doesn’t work. I tried it for three years. I pushed on the three steps, hammering the walls out and they always popped back in to where I saw that in a classroom I have to
1. establish meaning
2. get reps
3. read it
The three structures are needed as train tracks for the CI train. Some kind of targets are needed because the class is so short.
Your own kids are learning it because they are exposed to it 24/7 because that is how the LAD works, in my own opinion. The LAD needs the full week every week all day and in through sleep.
We make a big error when we assume that the same process that guides acquisition in L1 works in the same way in a classroom, because of the huge difference in CI time.
How do we even know if an underwatered plant can grow at all?
We have four and a half hours per week. It is like having a machine that can sweep up dirt off the street but we only run it 1/168th of the time. It picks up far less dirt.
So when we get in class for four and a half hours a week, or realistically half of that, if we’re honest, then we can say that the LAD picks up far less than what it is capable.
Your kids learning their first language are picking up over 200 times more L1 than we can offer in class. That changes all the equations, if there were any equations, but there are no equations and no research can definitively show which is why they are called hypotheses.
There is only time exposure to CI. The more compelling, the faster and more sure is the process. But it can’t be measured, not by us.
…maybe doing more CWB type activities, especially in the first year?…
Yes but notice that CWB targets vocabulary, lays down rails and stays on them. When we don’t target CWB from the cards, or leave their content and go too wide, the train runs into the sand. We all have done that with CWB.
…and PQA, it’s kind of between CWB and story scripts – vocab is driving it, but so are students….
Nice point. We always want to push the class discussion into what is compelling to the kids. THEN we could push the discussion wider. But my point about the structures serving as rails is only because of the time limitations, the spoonfeeding of small amounts of CI into the LAD when it is a huge vacuum wanting as much as it can get 24/7.
We haven’t really talked much here over the years about how our short classes limit what we can do, in terms of what the voracious LAD can do if given the time.
…the best bet is just keep the CI train moving, no matter what it is, be human, create that space for the conversation and trust the process….
Wise words, and just to add the recent thread about forgiving ourselves if they don’t learn anything. We don’t know how much CI is needed, we offer a fraction of that unknown amount, amidst distraction after distraction, and then we beat ourselves up because our kids progress so slowly. That is messed up and way out of tune with sGI.
Who said we have to target structures? Can’t we just tell a story?
I have a friend, Justin Slocum-Bailey, who is a Latin teacher in Santa Monica and is on LBP. He told me that this past year that he was trying to do just what you’re saying Ben, – mainly NOT have any set vocabulary structures for the class and have stories and student interest alone drive the language learning (not the other way around). He said it has been, as you might expect, very high interest for the kids.
He has smaller size classes I believe, and I think a lower student load – not that this HAS to make a difference, but the main reason I think that I lean toward having key structures (especially across common classes) is to make planning and life easier for myself. Keeping somewhat of a schedule of vocabulary and stories helps maintain some sanity for ME so I know what classes know what vocab. Otherwise I’m tend to forget to some degree what class has what vocabulary over a week with 190 kids and five different classes.
But, I wonder if I just went whole-hog one year and ONLY let kids drive the vocab, if my brain would be able to switch from class to class – maybe it could, probably it could, but I think I will have to have my discipline, routines and mechanics DOWN to give my brain the space it needs to focus on being more attentive with the kids.
I consider it because I do notice that the CWB time at the beginning of the year that is NOT really vocab driven, it’s kid driven and REALLY sticks with them – ALL YEAR. I wonder if we might experiment some year and go free-form the whole year – but then again I am torn because I DO also like the break that the scripted stories give ME and the even bigger break that reading gives me.
My first response got 404’d, so I’ll keep this brief. One way we can keep the net personalized for each class/section would be to designate a student job: Master Vocab List Compiler. This job would be to write down every new TL word that is introduced, and perhaps put a check next to the ones that have been circled and/or included in the story. This way, it’s no mystery what words are fair game in each class. By having each section keep track of it, it gives them the ownership. Now, they have to prep us, and we come into class and stay focused on our unique job: keeping the CI train rolling.
This idea is something that I struggle with quite a bit. My personality tries to put controls onto this process. It wants to have “things” to teach. I have to tell myself that I am teaching kids and I am using Latin to do it. This is where I am feeling very lost. This concept is so new to me. I’m not sure what it should look like. I want to have everything figured out because it is safer.
Hey, I can admit it. As long as I am delivering CI, then I guess I am doing it correctly, right? The more we focus on the kids, they better. Does anyone else feel this way? My analytic brain gets in the way of just letting the process work.