Joe asked a question in 2013 that fits in with our current discussion on Scope and Sequence. It started a discussion that may still concern some of us so I repost it here. Hopefully we address it in more detail than we have in the past (we have been too general on this topic): This year […]
Language is processed unconsciously. As we hear words thousands of times their meanings move richly and deeply into the deeper mind and a wonderful dance of language creation occurs. The creation of a new language system can only occur in the unconscious mind. Children learn a language because they wants to know what it means – it
You read that title right. Why do I say that? Well, for one thing, it would get Paul Kirschling to write a comment here, and a good one. There is Tina’s great model for a CI kind of Scope and Sequence, but those are hard to create. It makes us work too hard and would
Don’t Change Traditional/Grammar Based Scope and Sequence Models Read More »
I suggest that we never do grammar pop ups during stories. The unconscious focus on the language gets interrupted when we do that. We don’t need hand comprehension checks either. Search that term for an article on that. We do need “What did I just say” comprehension checks. Doing pop up grammar interrupts the unconscious process
Mark just now asked us to discuss with our partner our work in terms of this question: “How do I make content accessible by fostering thinking?” In introducing this activity (all of it grouped under the general heading of Teaching for Understanding*),he used two terms that I couldn’t grasp: dichotomous and leveraging. What? I can’t grasp
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
