![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There was a lengthy discussion on the Cambridge list about students not doing well on the stage tests. I finally weighed in this morning with this:
***
First, I just want to say, especially for those new to Cambridge, that we do talk a lot about the Cambridge philosophy--that grammar and vocabulary are best internalized and assimilated by reading and using the language.
Cambridge has a wonderful storyline that promotes reading that few other texts can match.
As teachers, though, the Cambridge text is a tool--a good tool (a great
tool) if we think about how best to use it. To do that, you have to think about what your true ultimate goal is. We should all have reading Latin as our goal, yes? And to read Latin well, you do have to master morphology.
And mastering morphology one case at a time isn't that difficult if the focus is there all along.
One of the problems new teachers to Cambridge have is not knowing how to support the mastering of morphology and syntax without going back to drill and kill. When we separate morphology and syntax issues from the reading of Latin and then assume that all students can put it back together--and that's where we lose students (by Latin 3).
I think we all know that teaching is a creative vocation that allows for personalized approaches. To emphasize from the very beginning that morphology matters and that you can't just guess from context and vocabulary what the sentence means, I metaphrase. The basic metaphrasing sentence is "someone verbed something to someone" (of course if you haven't gotten to the dative, you can leave that one out).
So, for warm-ups, I might put five "first words" that are in different cases and force students to recognize the word for all it means, morphology and all. For instance, I might list words like this:
servO (caps for macrons)
ancillAs
fUrEs
And the answers would be:
Someone verbed something to the slave.
Someone verbed the slave girls.
Someone verbed the thieves OR The thieves verbed someone. (and then we discuss how you can figure out which it is)
Such exercises allow for us to discuss morphology, but in the context of a sentence.
Then when we approach a reading, we do prereading activities, including repeating the vocab under a story. So, flipping open Unit 2 just now and looking at the words under "coniUrAtiO" I see pugiOnem. For that word, we would say, "Someone verbed the dagger." I might even ask WHY I did this and make them tell me because it is accusative/direct object/because of the m.
On my vocabulary quizzes (and in general I give two per stage, picking the words that appear in the first couple of stories for the first quiz, etc), I require more than just meanings. I give quizzes in context. While I do NOT require metaphrasing on the vocab quizzes, I do require certain things like "to/for" with datives, plurals/singulars, tenses, person, etc. If for vulnerAvit the student just puts "wounds", that's half wrong; he must put "he wounded."
Some people have commented that this is mixing grammar with vocab. Yes, it is. But language isn't naturally divided into categories of vocab and grammar, etc. And, this gives me a chance to focus on some of the little things that appear on the test.
No, the tests aren't perfect. I don't use straight Cambridge tests, but most of my tests have much of the best of the Cambridge tests. I do think it's ok to require that they understand that with crEdO you need to have dative objects--as long as this is emphasized in the context of a sentence.
And as for identifying grammar, yeah I do that too after the site passage (and I require written out short answer reading comp questions in both English and Latin), but I do that in great measure because we can't escape from the details--we can't escape from what standardized tests from SAT II to entrance exams at colleges and AP will require. And the fact remains that all these categories of grammar were developed in order to understand better the structure and nature of language. And if such questions are limited, I think that's ok.
I have a series of quia review drills and quizzes that I use for test reviews. We always go to the computer lab before a test. Ok, in great measure it previews portions of the tests (NOT all) and some people with disagree with doing this. BUT my goal is to teach mastery of the language.
I allow retakes of tests because my goal is mastery of the language. And I find that about 90% or more of the students find the quia reviews helpful in mastering the nitpicky aspects of language. It gives them one on one feedback, and if a student is having problems with the concept I can explain one on one while they do an exercise and talk them through it while everyone else is also engaged with the language.
The thing is, if we don't make sure that students master these nuances of language as each one comes up in the text, we will later be frustrated with what we perceive as what they don't know or weaknesses in the text (that really aren't there). Better to have a text that promotes READING of Latin than to have a text that appeals to the small minority of nerds that like to decline and conjugate. (And how impressive is it that parents who took Latin can conjugate but not read a damn bit of Latin?) But it is up to us to make sure that WE emphasize these nuances and explain why they matter and why they must be mastered.
Yes, follow the Cambridge philosophy, but remember it is just a book. It is a great textbook, and I am often totally impressed with how incredibly clever the original authors were. But we are the teachers. WE are the TEACHERS. We can try to truly get our heads inside the Cambridge philosophy and figure out different ways we can support that philosophy. And we each will have a different take on exactly what to do and how to do it. And our views will evolve over time. I'm constantly rethinking what I do and how to do it. That's what makes teaching such a great profession; if you are truly engaged with what you do, you never stop evolving and improving.
***
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while. I'm going to try to catch up over spring break.
On Valentine's Day my beloved Latin teacher, Doris Kays, passed away. She had been fighting liver cancer for over a year. She was a wonderful, incredible person, and I will miss her. I do miss her. Another of the Latin teachers I worked with in high school had a heart attack a little over a week ago, but has recovered. I saw him this weekend and he looked really good.
I'm including this in my blog to remind teachers that teaching is only one part of your life. You must take care of you and your life and your family first and foremost. You will have years when you attend funerals, where things go wrong in your personal life, etc. Remember to cut yourself some slack.
I'm not having a perfect year. I haven't progressed far enough with the Latin 2 and Latin 3 class and feel incompetent some of the time. AND YET my students tell me that they've really learned a lot from me. Is it true? I'm not sure. I can tell you this much: when I did my National Latin Teacher Recruitment Week bit on Friday, I had a truly attentive bunch of kids who had thoughtful, interesting comments.
I think I'm going to find that a lot of kids have signed up for Latin next year. And this when I did NOT do competition this year. That says something. I want to build a program based on my teaching philosophy, not my winning streak at JCL. My son's Latin teacher has a great certamen team, but only the brainiacs will go on in Latin--you know, the kids that can teach themselves. And I'm not saying that to be mean or critical. It is an observation from what I've seen, and too many Latin teachers are like that. Why?
Why? Well, because of what I was talking about at the top of this posting. Teaching Latin isn't about being a facilitator for your textbook. Your textbook doesn't do it all. You have to want to know more about HOW to truly TEACH a foreign language. You have to be thinking all of the time, "how can I get them to internalize this?" What do I want to require for mastery and how will I get there?
In 5 years I want to have a big program that also has a strong JCL. That's my new 5 year plan. But I want to build a program with the Latin first, with my philosophy of learning to read Latin first. First. JCL is great; but JCL can come 2nd.
***
First, I just want to say, especially for those new to Cambridge, that we do talk a lot about the Cambridge philosophy--that grammar and vocabulary are best internalized and assimilated by reading and using the language.
Cambridge has a wonderful storyline that promotes reading that few other texts can match.
As teachers, though, the Cambridge text is a tool--a good tool (a great
tool) if we think about how best to use it. To do that, you have to think about what your true ultimate goal is. We should all have reading Latin as our goal, yes? And to read Latin well, you do have to master morphology.
And mastering morphology one case at a time isn't that difficult if the focus is there all along.
One of the problems new teachers to Cambridge have is not knowing how to support the mastering of morphology and syntax without going back to drill and kill. When we separate morphology and syntax issues from the reading of Latin and then assume that all students can put it back together--and that's where we lose students (by Latin 3).
I think we all know that teaching is a creative vocation that allows for personalized approaches. To emphasize from the very beginning that morphology matters and that you can't just guess from context and vocabulary what the sentence means, I metaphrase. The basic metaphrasing sentence is "someone verbed something to someone" (of course if you haven't gotten to the dative, you can leave that one out).
So, for warm-ups, I might put five "first words" that are in different cases and force students to recognize the word for all it means, morphology and all. For instance, I might list words like this:
servO (caps for macrons)
ancillAs
fUrEs
And the answers would be:
Someone verbed something to the slave.
Someone verbed the slave girls.
Someone verbed the thieves OR The thieves verbed someone. (and then we discuss how you can figure out which it is)
Such exercises allow for us to discuss morphology, but in the context of a sentence.
Then when we approach a reading, we do prereading activities, including repeating the vocab under a story. So, flipping open Unit 2 just now and looking at the words under "coniUrAtiO" I see pugiOnem. For that word, we would say, "Someone verbed the dagger." I might even ask WHY I did this and make them tell me because it is accusative/direct object/because of the m.
On my vocabulary quizzes (and in general I give two per stage, picking the words that appear in the first couple of stories for the first quiz, etc), I require more than just meanings. I give quizzes in context. While I do NOT require metaphrasing on the vocab quizzes, I do require certain things like "to/for" with datives, plurals/singulars, tenses, person, etc. If for vulnerAvit the student just puts "wounds", that's half wrong; he must put "he wounded."
Some people have commented that this is mixing grammar with vocab. Yes, it is. But language isn't naturally divided into categories of vocab and grammar, etc. And, this gives me a chance to focus on some of the little things that appear on the test.
No, the tests aren't perfect. I don't use straight Cambridge tests, but most of my tests have much of the best of the Cambridge tests. I do think it's ok to require that they understand that with crEdO you need to have dative objects--as long as this is emphasized in the context of a sentence.
And as for identifying grammar, yeah I do that too after the site passage (and I require written out short answer reading comp questions in both English and Latin), but I do that in great measure because we can't escape from the details--we can't escape from what standardized tests from SAT II to entrance exams at colleges and AP will require. And the fact remains that all these categories of grammar were developed in order to understand better the structure and nature of language. And if such questions are limited, I think that's ok.
I have a series of quia review drills and quizzes that I use for test reviews. We always go to the computer lab before a test. Ok, in great measure it previews portions of the tests (NOT all) and some people with disagree with doing this. BUT my goal is to teach mastery of the language.
I allow retakes of tests because my goal is mastery of the language. And I find that about 90% or more of the students find the quia reviews helpful in mastering the nitpicky aspects of language. It gives them one on one feedback, and if a student is having problems with the concept I can explain one on one while they do an exercise and talk them through it while everyone else is also engaged with the language.
The thing is, if we don't make sure that students master these nuances of language as each one comes up in the text, we will later be frustrated with what we perceive as what they don't know or weaknesses in the text (that really aren't there). Better to have a text that promotes READING of Latin than to have a text that appeals to the small minority of nerds that like to decline and conjugate. (And how impressive is it that parents who took Latin can conjugate but not read a damn bit of Latin?) But it is up to us to make sure that WE emphasize these nuances and explain why they matter and why they must be mastered.
Yes, follow the Cambridge philosophy, but remember it is just a book. It is a great textbook, and I am often totally impressed with how incredibly clever the original authors were. But we are the teachers. WE are the TEACHERS. We can try to truly get our heads inside the Cambridge philosophy and figure out different ways we can support that philosophy. And we each will have a different take on exactly what to do and how to do it. And our views will evolve over time. I'm constantly rethinking what I do and how to do it. That's what makes teaching such a great profession; if you are truly engaged with what you do, you never stop evolving and improving.
***
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while. I'm going to try to catch up over spring break.
On Valentine's Day my beloved Latin teacher, Doris Kays, passed away. She had been fighting liver cancer for over a year. She was a wonderful, incredible person, and I will miss her. I do miss her. Another of the Latin teachers I worked with in high school had a heart attack a little over a week ago, but has recovered. I saw him this weekend and he looked really good.
I'm including this in my blog to remind teachers that teaching is only one part of your life. You must take care of you and your life and your family first and foremost. You will have years when you attend funerals, where things go wrong in your personal life, etc. Remember to cut yourself some slack.
I'm not having a perfect year. I haven't progressed far enough with the Latin 2 and Latin 3 class and feel incompetent some of the time. AND YET my students tell me that they've really learned a lot from me. Is it true? I'm not sure. I can tell you this much: when I did my National Latin Teacher Recruitment Week bit on Friday, I had a truly attentive bunch of kids who had thoughtful, interesting comments.
I think I'm going to find that a lot of kids have signed up for Latin next year. And this when I did NOT do competition this year. That says something. I want to build a program based on my teaching philosophy, not my winning streak at JCL. My son's Latin teacher has a great certamen team, but only the brainiacs will go on in Latin--you know, the kids that can teach themselves. And I'm not saying that to be mean or critical. It is an observation from what I've seen, and too many Latin teachers are like that. Why?
Why? Well, because of what I was talking about at the top of this posting. Teaching Latin isn't about being a facilitator for your textbook. Your textbook doesn't do it all. You have to want to know more about HOW to truly TEACH a foreign language. You have to be thinking all of the time, "how can I get them to internalize this?" What do I want to require for mastery and how will I get there?
In 5 years I want to have a big program that also has a strong JCL. That's my new 5 year plan. But I want to build a program with the Latin first, with my philosophy of learning to read Latin first. First. JCL is great; but JCL can come 2nd.
