![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is from a note I sent offlist earlier today to someone requesting clarification for what happens that students don't get placed in higher levels of Latin when entering college....
***
I'm answering this off list because it seems to me that tempers have been flying lately. In fact, I've deleted a lot of this thread....
Here is what I think is happening.
The more progressive reading approach texts, which I heartily support, spread out the grammar over three years instead of compacting it into two years as grammar front texts do. When you consider that modern languages don't really hit much in the way of grammar until 3rd and 4th years, this is not unreasonable.
But when you have foreign language requirements of just 2 years for high school graduation, you have a ton of students who never "finish" the course of grammar. What do you do?
Add to that the unfortunate situation, in my opinion, that many teachers do not know how to teach well from these excellent texts. Too many people (my son's middle school teacher included) think that learning Latin is about memorizing long lists of vocabulary and either "getting" grammar or not. My son is a typical y-chromosome kid, not particularly focused, not a bad student but not sterling either. His teacher's teaching style does not promote broad learning--only those who probably could teach themselves, if you know what I mean. My son now comes to me (finally!) to ask for help and even *thanks* me and tells me that he wouldn't understand stuff if it weren't for me.
I'm at a new school outside of Austin (and overwhelmed with English classes mainly!) and I have inherited a student who is technically in his 4th year of Latin! He had two years in middle school (equal to 1) and 3 years with another high school teacher. He was sort of doing AP Latin (Ovid/Catullus) in independent study with his eye on challenging the AP exam with me. I've given him a few tests, and frankly he doesn't know basic grammar. HE CAN'T IDENTIFY CASES! Frankly, he could benefit from an intensive trip through Wheelock's. If he took the AP exam, I doubt he'd get more than a 1... a 2 if he were really lucky. (Maybe I'm being too pessimistic... maybe he really is much better and the tests just haven't shown it.)
What's happening here? Too many students are floating through courses like Cambridge or even Ecce, getting by on knowing vocab and being able to piece together meaning from context. NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
And too many people (LFA lovers?!) blame the text. It's not the text's fault; it's the teacher's fault for not finding ways to reinforce grammar in context. And part of that fault falls back on the shoulders of those who train teachers because pedagogy is hardly focused on. HOW can these new teachers learn how to teach properly from these texts if no one ever teaches them to? Distler's _Teach the Latin, I Pray You_ really should be required for all methods courses. It gets you really thinking about teaching independent of books.
I frankly couldn't care less if my students can decline a noun or conjugate a verb in isolation unless lack of that knowledge is keeping them from translating correctly. You won't find that on any major test of mine. A quiz, maybe, to keep them sharp on forms. But on a test, I want to see an ability to read, and ability to understand morphology in context (complete the sentence, etc). Declining is a trick of memory, not a higher-level thinking skill.
If universities want to see a difference in what is happening with placement, they need to pay closer attention to their own undergrads, grad students, and particularly teachers in training. All that is taught--usually--at the university level is "translate the next 60 lines for class" sort of thing. No one takes time out to teach reading skills or pronunciation, the latter leading to teachers whose pronunciation is abominable. Bad habits are just reinforced and no one graduates with fluency in the language, do they? I didn't, and I had a 3.94 GPA.
I have suggested in the past (and if I can ever get beyond this year and all these ENglsh classes which are swamping my life you'll hear more on this) that ALL LATIN PROGRAMS at the university level have a one hour lab requirment to teach reading theory and to develop extensive reading skills. This would be the time to show how reading in word order COMBINED with a SOLID knowledge of morphology can lead to fluency. Oral skills could be developed, something that also develops deeper comprehension and prepares one for teaching.
HOW MANY people end up in the classroom who NEVER thought they'd be teachers? So if they are never exposed to how to teach well, how CAN they teach well? You cannot just tell kids to go home and memorize. It's a stupid and an ineffective way to learn Latin--and done all the time. And if you don't really understand how to teach students to read in word order and to demonstrate the importance of morphology from the very beginning, how can you ever expect them to master endings? How can they ever move from 2 line sentences to 10 line Ciceronian sentences??
***
There was a bit more, but not pertinent. I just wanted to post this here before another good rant disappeared into cyberspace...
***
I'm answering this off list because it seems to me that tempers have been flying lately. In fact, I've deleted a lot of this thread....
Here is what I think is happening.
The more progressive reading approach texts, which I heartily support, spread out the grammar over three years instead of compacting it into two years as grammar front texts do. When you consider that modern languages don't really hit much in the way of grammar until 3rd and 4th years, this is not unreasonable.
But when you have foreign language requirements of just 2 years for high school graduation, you have a ton of students who never "finish" the course of grammar. What do you do?
Add to that the unfortunate situation, in my opinion, that many teachers do not know how to teach well from these excellent texts. Too many people (my son's middle school teacher included) think that learning Latin is about memorizing long lists of vocabulary and either "getting" grammar or not. My son is a typical y-chromosome kid, not particularly focused, not a bad student but not sterling either. His teacher's teaching style does not promote broad learning--only those who probably could teach themselves, if you know what I mean. My son now comes to me (finally!) to ask for help and even *thanks* me and tells me that he wouldn't understand stuff if it weren't for me.
I'm at a new school outside of Austin (and overwhelmed with English classes mainly!) and I have inherited a student who is technically in his 4th year of Latin! He had two years in middle school (equal to 1) and 3 years with another high school teacher. He was sort of doing AP Latin (Ovid/Catullus) in independent study with his eye on challenging the AP exam with me. I've given him a few tests, and frankly he doesn't know basic grammar. HE CAN'T IDENTIFY CASES! Frankly, he could benefit from an intensive trip through Wheelock's. If he took the AP exam, I doubt he'd get more than a 1... a 2 if he were really lucky. (Maybe I'm being too pessimistic... maybe he really is much better and the tests just haven't shown it.)
What's happening here? Too many students are floating through courses like Cambridge or even Ecce, getting by on knowing vocab and being able to piece together meaning from context. NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
And too many people (LFA lovers?!) blame the text. It's not the text's fault; it's the teacher's fault for not finding ways to reinforce grammar in context. And part of that fault falls back on the shoulders of those who train teachers because pedagogy is hardly focused on. HOW can these new teachers learn how to teach properly from these texts if no one ever teaches them to? Distler's _Teach the Latin, I Pray You_ really should be required for all methods courses. It gets you really thinking about teaching independent of books.
I frankly couldn't care less if my students can decline a noun or conjugate a verb in isolation unless lack of that knowledge is keeping them from translating correctly. You won't find that on any major test of mine. A quiz, maybe, to keep them sharp on forms. But on a test, I want to see an ability to read, and ability to understand morphology in context (complete the sentence, etc). Declining is a trick of memory, not a higher-level thinking skill.
If universities want to see a difference in what is happening with placement, they need to pay closer attention to their own undergrads, grad students, and particularly teachers in training. All that is taught--usually--at the university level is "translate the next 60 lines for class" sort of thing. No one takes time out to teach reading skills or pronunciation, the latter leading to teachers whose pronunciation is abominable. Bad habits are just reinforced and no one graduates with fluency in the language, do they? I didn't, and I had a 3.94 GPA.
I have suggested in the past (and if I can ever get beyond this year and all these ENglsh classes which are swamping my life you'll hear more on this) that ALL LATIN PROGRAMS at the university level have a one hour lab requirment to teach reading theory and to develop extensive reading skills. This would be the time to show how reading in word order COMBINED with a SOLID knowledge of morphology can lead to fluency. Oral skills could be developed, something that also develops deeper comprehension and prepares one for teaching.
HOW MANY people end up in the classroom who NEVER thought they'd be teachers? So if they are never exposed to how to teach well, how CAN they teach well? You cannot just tell kids to go home and memorize. It's a stupid and an ineffective way to learn Latin--and done all the time. And if you don't really understand how to teach students to read in word order and to demonstrate the importance of morphology from the very beginning, how can you ever expect them to master endings? How can they ever move from 2 line sentences to 10 line Ciceronian sentences??
***
There was a bit more, but not pertinent. I just wanted to post this here before another good rant disappeared into cyberspace...
Tags:
