![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ok, if you don't think which textbook you teach from isn't important, then you haven't read through enough textbooks. But consider this: I have a stack of the old 3rd edition CLCs in my room and my 7th graders have started asking for copies to take home. And not just my A students.
Think about the textbook you learned from. Mine started with BRITANNIA EST INSULA. I think my teacher has since told me that it was Merrill (the text). There was nothing exciting about it. Nothing interesting. I don't remember reading ahead. I don't remember thinking it was anything all that grand. And I was a good student, an A student.
I have kids that are making C's who WANT COPIES OF THIS BOOK.
Here's the thing: we've got something the kids want. Where things fall apart in CLC is not with the text, it's with teaching from the text. It's figuring out how to reinforce and organize the grammar in a way that's complementary to the style of learning.
There was a Practicing the Language exercise we did in Stage 9 the other day which was basically practicing subject/verb agreement. However, the sentences were all NOM DAT ACC VERB sentences (for the most part), just like my model sentences (see previous post on this). I was able to show them that they could just find a similar nominative in the model sentences (e.g., if amicus was in the book, they would compare it to dominus in my model sentences because both are 2nd decl masc nom) and then see what kind of verb it has--singular or plural. For some reason, subject verb agreement can really be a problem for students. Kids who like puzzles, algebra, and such have no problem with these sorts of things, but the rest of the population seems to. I find that my model sentences reinforce the need to see THE WHOLE, not the pieces.
If only we could develop a teacher training/inservice that really TRAINED teachers to connect with all the nuances in teaching from these series AND reinforcing all the grammar AND keeping everything in context, etc etc etc.
But people who want to chuck this book because they want more grammar oriented students will be killing their programs, because the dry drill and kill books just don't appeal anymore. No one eats their veggies because there are vitamins and fortified food and drink and everything else. We can't force "what's good" on students anymore and hope that we have enough kids stick around to fill our upper division classes. If we want those classes filled, then we need to rethink our teaching. We need to be honest with what doesn't work (and I had plenty that didn't work this year!) and what does, and figure out how to do more of what does.
Think about the textbook you learned from. Mine started with BRITANNIA EST INSULA. I think my teacher has since told me that it was Merrill (the text). There was nothing exciting about it. Nothing interesting. I don't remember reading ahead. I don't remember thinking it was anything all that grand. And I was a good student, an A student.
I have kids that are making C's who WANT COPIES OF THIS BOOK.
Here's the thing: we've got something the kids want. Where things fall apart in CLC is not with the text, it's with teaching from the text. It's figuring out how to reinforce and organize the grammar in a way that's complementary to the style of learning.
There was a Practicing the Language exercise we did in Stage 9 the other day which was basically practicing subject/verb agreement. However, the sentences were all NOM DAT ACC VERB sentences (for the most part), just like my model sentences (see previous post on this). I was able to show them that they could just find a similar nominative in the model sentences (e.g., if amicus was in the book, they would compare it to dominus in my model sentences because both are 2nd decl masc nom) and then see what kind of verb it has--singular or plural. For some reason, subject verb agreement can really be a problem for students. Kids who like puzzles, algebra, and such have no problem with these sorts of things, but the rest of the population seems to. I find that my model sentences reinforce the need to see THE WHOLE, not the pieces.
If only we could develop a teacher training/inservice that really TRAINED teachers to connect with all the nuances in teaching from these series AND reinforcing all the grammar AND keeping everything in context, etc etc etc.
But people who want to chuck this book because they want more grammar oriented students will be killing their programs, because the dry drill and kill books just don't appeal anymore. No one eats their veggies because there are vitamins and fortified food and drink and everything else. We can't force "what's good" on students anymore and hope that we have enough kids stick around to fill our upper division classes. If we want those classes filled, then we need to rethink our teaching. We need to be honest with what doesn't work (and I had plenty that didn't work this year!) and what does, and figure out how to do more of what does.
Tags:
