![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I noticed a query on Latin Best Practices, and felt inspired to answer it earlier this afternoon instead of going to the pep rally. Then I thought I'd include it here.
(original query)
>>I'd be interested to know what the majority out there are doing...I always quiz on charts, declining nouns, conjugating in various tenses/voices, but when it comes to the test, I want to see if they can USE that knowledge, so I ask that type of grammar question in the context of a sentence or reading passage. My colleagues, on the other hand, insist that the knowledge of the charts is so important that it always must be on the test. What do others think? Am I totally off base? I'm also teaching middle school, using Cambridge, if that matters.
****
OK, so I'm late on this thread, but since I don't feel like going to the pep rally, I thought I'd talk about what I do.
First and foremost, I would not be surprised if each of us is a little self-conscious of the skills we are developing in our students and why, and what would happen to one of our students if they moved or if we moved and a new teacher was brought in. Would my students seem like the know what they SHOULD know, and what should they know?
My focus is on teaching true reading skills, getting students to read in word order, etc. I do a fair amount of oral work, but not nearly what Bob does (though perhaps one day when I feel a bit saner I might shift that way).
I never ask for conjugating or declining or principal parts on TESTS. Tests are for showing me you get the big picture and the details in context. However, I do spot test conjugating and declining on quizzes and principal parts of verbs (but NOT genitives of nouns or genders).
For instance, right now in Latin 1 we're at the end of stage 5 and about to have our "B" quiz. (I split the list into words that appear early in the chapter and those that appear late.) Vocabulary is tested in context, so if SPECTANT is in all caps in the sentence, the student must put THEY WATCH. If PUELLAE is in all caps, the student must put THE GIRLS--if it isn't plural it's half wrong. That is, from the very beginning I'm trying to teach them that they cannot learn vocabulary in isolation from context.
While warm-ups (praeparatiOnEs) may consist of conjugation practice, more often it's teaching them various strategies to *see* the details. I might list verbs like these and ask them to circle the endings and then translate:
1) coquO
2) spectAs
3) quaerit
etc
So, they would circle the -O and translate "I cook," the -s and translate "you watch," the -t and translate "he looks at." Many students, particularly younger students have difficulties in making what we think are obvious connections. They think that answers just POP into one's head, not that answer can be arrived at with thought and reason. And this same circling can earn them a point of extra credit on quizzes. One point isn't worth much, but if it slows them down enough to actually THINK about the details, then I'm helping them making a higher grade over all.
AFTER the words in context comes the target grammar--conjugating a verb. This next quiz will be a 3rd conjugation verb, a "fish hook" verb (because the vowels--o i i i i u--when lined up vertically look like a fish hook!). And we did conjugate a 3rd conjugation verb today for the warm-up.
But I don't demand that absolute perfection of being able to conjugate or decline everything in Latin 1. Most of them are still learning how to think about a language. My focus is on developing sharper recognition skills, not composition skills.
In Latin 2, I'm starting to be a bit more demanding. The first 3 declensions must be down cold by this time of year. Of course, I'm dreaming with a lot of my Latin 2's, but while we work on the participles, they are also fine-tuning their understanding of declensions and cases. But once again, my warm-ups do not focus on declining. I have quia exercises for that which they use the day before vocab quizzes (we're in the computer lab once a week prepping for what becomes my more complex vocab quizzes). Often for warm-ups I'll pull out target grammar from the passage we'll be reading. Today it was Vilbia in Stage 22, the new grammar being perfect active participles. So students had these to copy and translate:
1) puellae, pocula sordida lavantes, ...
2) vir, culinam tabernae ingressus,...
3) pater, haec verba locutus,...
etc
I'm working on getting them to see PHRASES when they read and not isolated words. (This also means that the idea of translations being graded via "chunking" on AP exams does not bother them at all because they have been studying chunking of sorts all along). Yesterday's warm-up had been similar with perfect passive participle and ablative of agents, followed by a discussion of these PASSIVE participles showing up with ablative of agents. With today's warm-up, we discussed the nature of present ACTIVE and perfect ACTIVE participles, how the action carries over to direct objects/accusatives, etc. And with that knowledge, we were able to realize that OF COURSE pocula wasn't 1st declension because we absolutely could not have a nominative there! It must be a neuter acc plural! Same with haec verba. I also have students circle the endings like the -ae of puellae and draw an arch to the -es of lavantes. We talk a lot about this nesting or arching of phrases in Latin.
And while we're working on stretching our minds to doing more sophisticated analysis and synthesis stet by step on warm-ups, we're doing simpler declining on the quizzes.
My Latin 3 class is pre-AP for the first time, and I'm actually giving them homework Mon, Tues, & Weds, plus Thurs for quiz or test on Fridays. They have all been in Latin long enough that I feel it's time to fine tune their skills. So, yes, conjugating, declining, and right now I'm teaching them about synopses. Quick checks are done via PowerPoints so I can move through them quickly and they can mark their mistakes to LEARN from them, and then on most days they will still have a warm-up, similar to the sorts of things that I demonstrated above for Latin 2--focus on seeing word groups, understanding how to disambiguate endings that could be multiple cases, and anything else I can think of to help them be solid readers of Latin. But if I'm asking them to conjugate or decline or write a synopsis of anything in particular on the quiz, there will be quia exercise to drill it home that has immediate feedback and correction. (I hate the possibility of studying the wrong thing and then having to unlearn something!)
My TESTS are structured in this manner for all levels (except AP, which look more like an AP test):
1) Sight Passage with reading comprehension questions in both Latin and English requiring short answers.
2) Translation of about 20-25 words from seen passage(s). I give them four choices and let them choose, which works out well actually and has that feeling of "fairness" to strugglers because there's never that chance of it being the one passage you didn't study.
3) grammar questions (mult choice) on the sight passage--asking case, tense, voice, mood, etc.
4) multiple choice sections targetting specific new grammar/structures (quia review available)
5) culture questions (objective) (quia review available).
But no conjugating, no declining, no synopses, no straight vocab, etc. Everything's in context.
My tests, admittedly, are a pain to grade. I can't just run everything through the scantron machine, only part. I can tell how their sight reading skills are coming along by how they answer the questions, and the spot translations make them responsible for rereading stories we read in class. And in the end, I feel like I'm developing skills that would make them successful in a variety of environments in the future. For instance, if I didn't demand at least a little translating on my tests, won't it come as a slap in the face to suddenly have to provide literally accurate Latin translations for AP? (I might add, that I do NOT ever require my Latin students to write out translations in prepping lines for class for AP. I want them to read and hopefully REREAD lines to internalize the Latin, not waste time writing out strained English translations.)
A student of mine in a college class with nothing but "go home and read the next 80 lines for class" should be successful and undaunted by the number of lines because of the reading skills I believe I'm imparting. For the class where the professor asks for a complete synposis of a particular verb in a passage, my students (post Latin 3) should be able to succeed. And if I were to be hit by a car tomorrow or suddenly have to move to San Antonio and a new grammar-first teacher came in, at least my lower level kids should be familiar enough with conjugating and declining to be able to comply without total embarrassment.
And, should a student of mine ever be lucky enough to study with Nancy Llewellyn at Wyoming Catholic College or Terrence Tunberg in Kentucky, the amount of reading aloud and simple oral questions on stories should put them in a position of at least willingness if not eagerness to go to an all-Latin environment.
(This was probably far more than you wanted, right?!)
But you asked what we do, and this is what I do.
(original query)
>>I'd be interested to know what the majority out there are doing...I always quiz on charts, declining nouns, conjugating in various tenses/voices, but when it comes to the test, I want to see if they can USE that knowledge, so I ask that type of grammar question in the context of a sentence or reading passage. My colleagues, on the other hand, insist that the knowledge of the charts is so important that it always must be on the test. What do others think? Am I totally off base? I'm also teaching middle school, using Cambridge, if that matters.
****
OK, so I'm late on this thread, but since I don't feel like going to the pep rally, I thought I'd talk about what I do.
First and foremost, I would not be surprised if each of us is a little self-conscious of the skills we are developing in our students and why, and what would happen to one of our students if they moved or if we moved and a new teacher was brought in. Would my students seem like the know what they SHOULD know, and what should they know?
My focus is on teaching true reading skills, getting students to read in word order, etc. I do a fair amount of oral work, but not nearly what Bob does (though perhaps one day when I feel a bit saner I might shift that way).
I never ask for conjugating or declining or principal parts on TESTS. Tests are for showing me you get the big picture and the details in context. However, I do spot test conjugating and declining on quizzes and principal parts of verbs (but NOT genitives of nouns or genders).
For instance, right now in Latin 1 we're at the end of stage 5 and about to have our "B" quiz. (I split the list into words that appear early in the chapter and those that appear late.) Vocabulary is tested in context, so if SPECTANT is in all caps in the sentence, the student must put THEY WATCH. If PUELLAE is in all caps, the student must put THE GIRLS--if it isn't plural it's half wrong. That is, from the very beginning I'm trying to teach them that they cannot learn vocabulary in isolation from context.
While warm-ups (praeparatiOnEs) may consist of conjugation practice, more often it's teaching them various strategies to *see* the details. I might list verbs like these and ask them to circle the endings and then translate:
1) coquO
2) spectAs
3) quaerit
etc
So, they would circle the -O and translate "I cook," the -s and translate "you watch," the -t and translate "he looks at." Many students, particularly younger students have difficulties in making what we think are obvious connections. They think that answers just POP into one's head, not that answer can be arrived at with thought and reason. And this same circling can earn them a point of extra credit on quizzes. One point isn't worth much, but if it slows them down enough to actually THINK about the details, then I'm helping them making a higher grade over all.
AFTER the words in context comes the target grammar--conjugating a verb. This next quiz will be a 3rd conjugation verb, a "fish hook" verb (because the vowels--o i i i i u--when lined up vertically look like a fish hook!). And we did conjugate a 3rd conjugation verb today for the warm-up.
But I don't demand that absolute perfection of being able to conjugate or decline everything in Latin 1. Most of them are still learning how to think about a language. My focus is on developing sharper recognition skills, not composition skills.
In Latin 2, I'm starting to be a bit more demanding. The first 3 declensions must be down cold by this time of year. Of course, I'm dreaming with a lot of my Latin 2's, but while we work on the participles, they are also fine-tuning their understanding of declensions and cases. But once again, my warm-ups do not focus on declining. I have quia exercises for that which they use the day before vocab quizzes (we're in the computer lab once a week prepping for what becomes my more complex vocab quizzes). Often for warm-ups I'll pull out target grammar from the passage we'll be reading. Today it was Vilbia in Stage 22, the new grammar being perfect active participles. So students had these to copy and translate:
1) puellae, pocula sordida lavantes, ...
2) vir, culinam tabernae ingressus,...
3) pater, haec verba locutus,...
etc
I'm working on getting them to see PHRASES when they read and not isolated words. (This also means that the idea of translations being graded via "chunking" on AP exams does not bother them at all because they have been studying chunking of sorts all along). Yesterday's warm-up had been similar with perfect passive participle and ablative of agents, followed by a discussion of these PASSIVE participles showing up with ablative of agents. With today's warm-up, we discussed the nature of present ACTIVE and perfect ACTIVE participles, how the action carries over to direct objects/accusatives, etc. And with that knowledge, we were able to realize that OF COURSE pocula wasn't 1st declension because we absolutely could not have a nominative there! It must be a neuter acc plural! Same with haec verba. I also have students circle the endings like the -ae of puellae and draw an arch to the -es of lavantes. We talk a lot about this nesting or arching of phrases in Latin.
And while we're working on stretching our minds to doing more sophisticated analysis and synthesis stet by step on warm-ups, we're doing simpler declining on the quizzes.
My Latin 3 class is pre-AP for the first time, and I'm actually giving them homework Mon, Tues, & Weds, plus Thurs for quiz or test on Fridays. They have all been in Latin long enough that I feel it's time to fine tune their skills. So, yes, conjugating, declining, and right now I'm teaching them about synopses. Quick checks are done via PowerPoints so I can move through them quickly and they can mark their mistakes to LEARN from them, and then on most days they will still have a warm-up, similar to the sorts of things that I demonstrated above for Latin 2--focus on seeing word groups, understanding how to disambiguate endings that could be multiple cases, and anything else I can think of to help them be solid readers of Latin. But if I'm asking them to conjugate or decline or write a synopsis of anything in particular on the quiz, there will be quia exercise to drill it home that has immediate feedback and correction. (I hate the possibility of studying the wrong thing and then having to unlearn something!)
My TESTS are structured in this manner for all levels (except AP, which look more like an AP test):
1) Sight Passage with reading comprehension questions in both Latin and English requiring short answers.
2) Translation of about 20-25 words from seen passage(s). I give them four choices and let them choose, which works out well actually and has that feeling of "fairness" to strugglers because there's never that chance of it being the one passage you didn't study.
3) grammar questions (mult choice) on the sight passage--asking case, tense, voice, mood, etc.
4) multiple choice sections targetting specific new grammar/structures (quia review available)
5) culture questions (objective) (quia review available).
But no conjugating, no declining, no synopses, no straight vocab, etc. Everything's in context.
My tests, admittedly, are a pain to grade. I can't just run everything through the scantron machine, only part. I can tell how their sight reading skills are coming along by how they answer the questions, and the spot translations make them responsible for rereading stories we read in class. And in the end, I feel like I'm developing skills that would make them successful in a variety of environments in the future. For instance, if I didn't demand at least a little translating on my tests, won't it come as a slap in the face to suddenly have to provide literally accurate Latin translations for AP? (I might add, that I do NOT ever require my Latin students to write out translations in prepping lines for class for AP. I want them to read and hopefully REREAD lines to internalize the Latin, not waste time writing out strained English translations.)
A student of mine in a college class with nothing but "go home and read the next 80 lines for class" should be successful and undaunted by the number of lines because of the reading skills I believe I'm imparting. For the class where the professor asks for a complete synposis of a particular verb in a passage, my students (post Latin 3) should be able to succeed. And if I were to be hit by a car tomorrow or suddenly have to move to San Antonio and a new grammar-first teacher came in, at least my lower level kids should be familiar enough with conjugating and declining to be able to comply without total embarrassment.
And, should a student of mine ever be lucky enough to study with Nancy Llewellyn at Wyoming Catholic College or Terrence Tunberg in Kentucky, the amount of reading aloud and simple oral questions on stories should put them in a position of at least willingness if not eagerness to go to an all-Latin environment.
(This was probably far more than you wanted, right?!)
But you asked what we do, and this is what I do.
Tags:
