This past Thursday we had our last two presentations on language learning/teaching methods. The first one was on Process Programmes. When I first heard the name, at the beginning of the term, when our teacher introduced the list of methods we were going to study, I thought it would be linked with cognitive psychology and our brain working like a computer. Well, none of that, at least by what was mentioned in class. Our classmates focused on Task Based Learning (TBL), leaving Content Based Learning (CBL) aside.
They started off with Jimmy, who happened to be Charlie's twin brother and, of course, we were a bit put off, thinking that was an easy trick (we have become really picky as the term developed, it seems), but we soon saw that it was nothing like Charlie's activity, so we agreed to give it a try. At least that was the impression I got from our reaction while the presentation started. So, we made our list for a healthy breakfast for Jimmy, who was unfit, just like Charlie. I wonder if it would be wise to carry out such an activity in our schools, bearing in mind the amount of children who are overweight. Would they feel comfortable? Could some of them feel like a line had been crossed? On the other hand, we are talking about Jimmy, not Mikel or Aitor. The alter ego who faces and successfully deals with all kinds of problems (or suffers the painful consequences of not having conquered) is a very useful resource for children's learning. One of my best friend had Krispin, who had been running in the family for long, passed on from mother to daughter. All kinds of things happened to poor Krispin, depending on the child who listened to the stories. Children didn't seem to notice the trick, and seemed amused to find out about this character who happened to have the same problems as them.
Coming back to the presentation, I got a very clear idea: what really matters is the process, not the final outcome or product. Well, that is a big issue in education. It is a very nice thing to say, but are we really willing and prepared to assess the process, forgetting (mostly) the outcome? I don't think so. The final product is so deeply rooted into us, that we would need a huge effort to get rid of it. Still, it would do us so much good, and it would be so beneficial for many children!
I know I mentioned earlier in this diary that sometimes I felt like what we were learning was too far away from pre-primary teaching for me to be able to think how to adapt it. Well, none of that applies to TBL, because it is pure pre-primary teaching, just think of all those schools using project-based programmes in the Basque country.
Another interesting concept linked to TBL was transcending the classroom walls, which will eventually bring us to the learning community. That is a great idea, in my opinion. I love the Reggio Emilia air of TBL.
What I don't like that much is how we tend to choose the topics for the tasks or projects around here. At the end of the day, we somehow fool children to think that they chose the topic, when it was the teacher who had carefully planned it all well beforehand. Last year, we had the opportunity to read a paper on a project in a school inspired by Reggio Emilia, where the project unfolded genuinely following children's proposals. Children and teacher discovered the topic hand in hand, and it was beautiful. If the outcome is not really important, why does the teacher need to know the topic beforehand? I dream of a teacher like a storyteller we read about last year, who had a large gown, with lots of folds, where she hid small papers, and she could recall and re-create hundreds of stories just by reading the few notes on each small piece of paper. Wouldn't it be wonderful to become such a teacher!
Back to Earth, I have to mention that once again when talking on the disadvantages of TBL "too much freedom" came up, as well as the teacher needing to "control" (monitor was also mentioned). I am probably just old fashioned and have connections that give me goosebumps which younger students don't get when hearing those words.
The second presentation was on CLIL. It was also a very god presentation. The experiment to illustrate how different beaks are adapted to certain types of food was brilliant, I loved it. So, the two presentations introduced us to the content-language continuum, with CBL on one end (focus on learning content), TBL on the other end (focus on learning language), and CLIL in the middle. Of course, that is so in some ideal world, and not necessarily around here, and we had a chance to learn about the main problems of applying CLIL in our schools.
Funny to see that when our teacher asked if anybody had experienced CLIL in their education nobody mentioned the Minor we are currently taking. This unit, for instance, is pure CLIL. We have dealt with specific aspects of language, as well as contents on language learning/teaching, and I have the feeling the weight of both have been similar. CLIL is good too (well, good CLIL is good).
And finally, an interesting question our teacher threw when we were just finishing the lesson: what about those activities where children are asked to sit and colour or cut out and can stand for minutes in the English lesson receiving no input whatsoever, not producing and not thinking in English? We really need to think on ways to turn that around. It reminded me of the storytelling video we have just done in another unit. I did the storytelling with my 6 year-old niece, and I had never spoken English with her. I realised she knew quite a lot of vocabulary, but didn't recognise what I thought would be an easy question (how old are you?). Even though I did my in-school training at her school the previous two years, I didn't have the chance to attend their English lessons, but I do know they did colouring almost everyday. Our teacher's comment made me think on the kind of input she could have received.
2014/10/25
2014/10/19
Let's communicate!
Last Thursday we continued with our method presentations, and finally shifted from traditional methods, which focused on linguistic skills, to the communicative approach, that takes into account more skills and aims at making learners communicatively competent.
It was obviously a nice shift, and I really enjoyed both presentations. The first one was a general introduction to the communicative approach, and I felt our classmates did a very good job, because I guess the topic is so wide they could have gotten us lost in a big jungle. Instead, they focused on three activities representative of three different periods of development in the approach. We got to experience them and see the evolution from more guided and still grammar-based ideas, to activities where learners play a much more active role.
Besides, I had a chance to travel back in time and see the "Arthur&Mary" textbook which I have used (not a clue on exactly when, though), and it was interesting to look at it with my "teacher's specs" on. I remember having fun with the textbook, but now that I look at it and compare it with even more "fun" things that could be done, I can see it was still quite old fashioned. I have to say that the dialogue we read was very realistic, though. The situation might not have been too real, especially if the textbook was used with children, like it was with us (it pictures Arthur arriving late at work and making up a lie with Mary's help), but the dialogue itself was good. The pictures also helped a lot, and were really rich and appealing.
One of the main ideas I got out of the presentations was that the activities proposed to learners must be meaningful to them; the students must have their own purpose other than doing as they are told. This is linked with other things we have been reading on scaffolding in another unit: we should leave behind the discussion on the learner-centred approach vs. teacher-directed approach, and think of a learning-centred teaching. Our activities in class have one goal: to promote learning, which is constructed while interacting. Learning for all those involved in the activity, and learning which will reflect on teaching.
From that point of view, learning is somewhat ephemeral and fragile, because it doesn't necessarily have a material form and it can easily vanish if we are not careful enough to make it visible for the whole group, but it leaves permanent traces among those who have actually participated in the learning process. It is the teacher's responsibility to promote engaging as many students as he/she can in the learning process that can potentially happen in each lesson, and that is not always easy. Too often students are not interested in learning what the curriculum says, and very few have the guts to drop out to pursue their real interest, like Steve Jobs (I am thinking of university students now, not pre-primary or primary students). And too often too, the teacher will insist on producing the learning she/him had in mind, and not what students are interested in learning (this happens at all stages in the educational system, but is becomes more common as you "climb up the ladder", because teachers feel the pressure to deliver outcomes through their students' achievements).
The second presentation, on natural way, was very good too. We really enjoyed our italian lesson, and they managed to communicate and make us experience what the method was about perfectly. I liked the idea of lessons seeming casual, the easygoing atmosphere, using realia, gestures and total physical response (TPR). The method seems to draw on earlier methods we have seen, since besides TPR, I saw a lot of suggestopedia in it. I liked very much the concept of i+1, that input which is partly comprehensible, but partly forces you to use inference to create meanings which are new to you. It is a very powerful resource and, again, very much linked with scaffolding, as the +1 bit of the concept will only be grasped with support.
It was obviously a nice shift, and I really enjoyed both presentations. The first one was a general introduction to the communicative approach, and I felt our classmates did a very good job, because I guess the topic is so wide they could have gotten us lost in a big jungle. Instead, they focused on three activities representative of three different periods of development in the approach. We got to experience them and see the evolution from more guided and still grammar-based ideas, to activities where learners play a much more active role.
Besides, I had a chance to travel back in time and see the "Arthur&Mary" textbook which I have used (not a clue on exactly when, though), and it was interesting to look at it with my "teacher's specs" on. I remember having fun with the textbook, but now that I look at it and compare it with even more "fun" things that could be done, I can see it was still quite old fashioned. I have to say that the dialogue we read was very realistic, though. The situation might not have been too real, especially if the textbook was used with children, like it was with us (it pictures Arthur arriving late at work and making up a lie with Mary's help), but the dialogue itself was good. The pictures also helped a lot, and were really rich and appealing.
One of the main ideas I got out of the presentations was that the activities proposed to learners must be meaningful to them; the students must have their own purpose other than doing as they are told. This is linked with other things we have been reading on scaffolding in another unit: we should leave behind the discussion on the learner-centred approach vs. teacher-directed approach, and think of a learning-centred teaching. Our activities in class have one goal: to promote learning, which is constructed while interacting. Learning for all those involved in the activity, and learning which will reflect on teaching.
From that point of view, learning is somewhat ephemeral and fragile, because it doesn't necessarily have a material form and it can easily vanish if we are not careful enough to make it visible for the whole group, but it leaves permanent traces among those who have actually participated in the learning process. It is the teacher's responsibility to promote engaging as many students as he/she can in the learning process that can potentially happen in each lesson, and that is not always easy. Too often students are not interested in learning what the curriculum says, and very few have the guts to drop out to pursue their real interest, like Steve Jobs (I am thinking of university students now, not pre-primary or primary students). And too often too, the teacher will insist on producing the learning she/him had in mind, and not what students are interested in learning (this happens at all stages in the educational system, but is becomes more common as you "climb up the ladder", because teachers feel the pressure to deliver outcomes through their students' achievements).
The second presentation, on natural way, was very good too. We really enjoyed our italian lesson, and they managed to communicate and make us experience what the method was about perfectly. I liked the idea of lessons seeming casual, the easygoing atmosphere, using realia, gestures and total physical response (TPR). The method seems to draw on earlier methods we have seen, since besides TPR, I saw a lot of suggestopedia in it. I liked very much the concept of i+1, that input which is partly comprehensible, but partly forces you to use inference to create meanings which are new to you. It is a very powerful resource and, again, very much linked with scaffolding, as the +1 bit of the concept will only be grasped with support.
2014/10/12
More on integration and contextualisation, and the task feedback circle
Friday was a bit harder for all of us, I guess. We continued reflecting on perceptive skill teaching, and the importance of integrating listening/reading exercises into wider activities that will work on several skills, as well as the importance of setting all activities into a meaningful and attractive context for learners. Last Friday, the focus of interest was, once again, dreaming of the day we will finally graduate, and maybe go abroad to work and study.
Now, the task feedback circle seems so obvious that one wonders how come it was hardly ever used before. As a matter of fact, I doubt it is widely used even now. I think that nowadays we get confused, and instead of setting clear tasks to students, we actually do the task for them, and I am not talking particularly on listening/reading activities, but assignments in general. But, I guess that is another story.
As for the newspaper picture our teacher showed us, with four young women sitting at the table with trays of food, I was quite surprised to see us forgetting about our context (a degree in education, where we have been trained on how misleading our prejudices can be, and how harmful they are for teaching), and happily commenting on where they were from and so on.
Now, the task feedback circle seems so obvious that one wonders how come it was hardly ever used before. As a matter of fact, I doubt it is widely used even now. I think that nowadays we get confused, and instead of setting clear tasks to students, we actually do the task for them, and I am not talking particularly on listening/reading activities, but assignments in general. But, I guess that is another story.
As for the newspaper picture our teacher showed us, with four young women sitting at the table with trays of food, I was quite surprised to see us forgetting about our context (a degree in education, where we have been trained on how misleading our prejudices can be, and how harmful they are for teaching), and happily commenting on where they were from and so on.
More method presentations and some red lights in my head
Last Thursday we continued with our presentations on methods that have been used to teach/learn languages. It was the turn for Community Language Learning (CLL) and Total Physical Response (TPR), two of my favourite so far.
CLL, as originally designed, might be very tedious and too teacher focussed for my liking, bearing in mind that the teacher has to translate all that learners want to say. Still, I like the community bit, the idea that we learn through interaction, especially languages. The presentation was very good, but two things grabbed my attention: several of my classmates seemed to have difficulty believing that you could learn a language "just" by talking, without anything actually "being taught" to you. We didn't discuss on the issue, but I got the feeling that they thought some "proper teaching" was needed in order to learn a language. I wonder how they learned to lie, cheat, copy in exams etc; did their teachers and parents teach them how to? I guess that I am among those who believe that most of us learn despite those who try to "teach" us.
I also have the feeling that our primary education classmates are much more into an educare perspective than into the educere view, whereas those of us coming from the pre-school degree have the opposite view. It is just a feeling, since we haven't had the chance to discuss these issues seriously in class, but I see it in the activities they propose and their comments, as well as how "us", pre-primary education students, react to those comments and proposals.
The other issue that caught my attention is related to the same issue. In the CLL presentation, one of the presenters pointed out among the disadvantages of the method that giving too much freedom to learners could lead to problems (the leading role is meant to shift from teacher to learners as the latter improve their command of the language). Now, in my opinion, there is no such a thing as too much freedom. Of course, in some cases learners will need to be given more support when it comes to dealing with freedom, they will need resources, but limiting freedom is not the solution!
I guess this is one of those things that you learn when you are with a younger generation who has not experienced clear lack of freedom, as opposed to the subtle lack of freedom we are subjected to nowadays, and didn't have to bother thinking about it. To me, hearing those words in a twenty year-old is simply outrageous. I sense a disturbing wish/need to control children in some of my classmates, who will soon be teachers.
The second presentation, on TPR, was also very good. TPR is clearly a method which should be behind most pre-primary education activities, since it is very close to children and the way they learn naturally. It is also very suitable for creating a positive atmosphere in the classroom, and for community building. We all laughed a lot in that presentation, and laughing together brings people close (as long as it "laughing with" and not "laughing at"). It gives learners a sense of competence because it allows to communicate using your body, and it enables the teacher to integrate assessment in the learning activity itself, which I'd say is a big bonus. We haven't talked much on assessment yet, but I prefer integrating it into learning activities, rather than having a separate assessment activity, especially taking into account that time seems to be one of the limiting resources in our schools.
CLL, as originally designed, might be very tedious and too teacher focussed for my liking, bearing in mind that the teacher has to translate all that learners want to say. Still, I like the community bit, the idea that we learn through interaction, especially languages. The presentation was very good, but two things grabbed my attention: several of my classmates seemed to have difficulty believing that you could learn a language "just" by talking, without anything actually "being taught" to you. We didn't discuss on the issue, but I got the feeling that they thought some "proper teaching" was needed in order to learn a language. I wonder how they learned to lie, cheat, copy in exams etc; did their teachers and parents teach them how to? I guess that I am among those who believe that most of us learn despite those who try to "teach" us.
I also have the feeling that our primary education classmates are much more into an educare perspective than into the educere view, whereas those of us coming from the pre-school degree have the opposite view. It is just a feeling, since we haven't had the chance to discuss these issues seriously in class, but I see it in the activities they propose and their comments, as well as how "us", pre-primary education students, react to those comments and proposals.
The other issue that caught my attention is related to the same issue. In the CLL presentation, one of the presenters pointed out among the disadvantages of the method that giving too much freedom to learners could lead to problems (the leading role is meant to shift from teacher to learners as the latter improve their command of the language). Now, in my opinion, there is no such a thing as too much freedom. Of course, in some cases learners will need to be given more support when it comes to dealing with freedom, they will need resources, but limiting freedom is not the solution!
I guess this is one of those things that you learn when you are with a younger generation who has not experienced clear lack of freedom, as opposed to the subtle lack of freedom we are subjected to nowadays, and didn't have to bother thinking about it. To me, hearing those words in a twenty year-old is simply outrageous. I sense a disturbing wish/need to control children in some of my classmates, who will soon be teachers.
The second presentation, on TPR, was also very good. TPR is clearly a method which should be behind most pre-primary education activities, since it is very close to children and the way they learn naturally. It is also very suitable for creating a positive atmosphere in the classroom, and for community building. We all laughed a lot in that presentation, and laughing together brings people close (as long as it "laughing with" and not "laughing at"). It gives learners a sense of competence because it allows to communicate using your body, and it enables the teacher to integrate assessment in the learning activity itself, which I'd say is a big bonus. We haven't talked much on assessment yet, but I prefer integrating it into learning activities, rather than having a separate assessment activity, especially taking into account that time seems to be one of the limiting resources in our schools.
Essay no. 2: What if exams could be done cooperatively?
I was once told that a degree is meant to give you a system/method to face problems, not a pile of information. During our degree, we have been told once and again about the importance of cooperative learning and group work. Let’s imagine a teacher chose to assess cooperative learning and working skills in an exam.
At the beginning of the term, this teacher might ask his/her students to write an essay, using conditionals, answering to this question: “Imagine that on the day of the exam, a teacher let you use your notes, books and even the Internet to answer a set of questions, offered the opportunity to either take it the usual way (i.e. individually) or do it cooperatively, and gave you 15 minutes to discuss and decide among all classmates. What would be your proposal to your classmates, taking into account that the teacher asked you to come up with a solution that would enable to assess both cooperative skills and individual learning accomplished on the contents of the unit?”
Later on, on the day of the exam, the teacher would actually put that into practice. Maybe the students would choose to do it in cooperation, split into small groups to outline the main ideas that the answer to each question should contain, then discuss them in the large group, and afterwards take some time to write the answers individually.
But, then again, I wonder if any of this could ever happen around here.
At the beginning of the term, this teacher might ask his/her students to write an essay, using conditionals, answering to this question: “Imagine that on the day of the exam, a teacher let you use your notes, books and even the Internet to answer a set of questions, offered the opportunity to either take it the usual way (i.e. individually) or do it cooperatively, and gave you 15 minutes to discuss and decide among all classmates. What would be your proposal to your classmates, taking into account that the teacher asked you to come up with a solution that would enable to assess both cooperative skills and individual learning accomplished on the contents of the unit?”
Later on, on the day of the exam, the teacher would actually put that into practice. Maybe the students would choose to do it in cooperation, split into small groups to outline the main ideas that the answer to each question should contain, then discuss them in the large group, and afterwards take some time to write the answers individually.
But, then again, I wonder if any of this could ever happen around here.
2014/10/04
Connecting the dots by Steve Jobs
Our last lesson of the week was a "suggestopedic" listening activity. I say it was suggestopedic because it conveyed a positive message for my classmates, who are young and will soon graduate. Steve Jobs could have been talking to them, instead of those thousands of Stanford graduates.
Jobs' speech brought Berger's Invitation to sociology. A humanistic perspective to my mind.We read it on our first year of the degree, and I really enjoyed it. Berger said that the reason why when we look back on our lives the dots seem to connect is because we desperately need to find a meaning to life. We need to believe we are actually going somewhere, that living is about going, and not just being. So, in his opinion, we deceive ourselves when we connect the dots. These matters can't be bothering my classmates just yet, as they only have a few dots behind.
As for the activity itself, I found it very interesting and amusing. The video was interesting, and the introductory chat we had before watching it revealed how it related to us, granting that attention would be payed. Then, of course, knowing that we would have to answer some questions, and knowing the questions beforehand, helped greatly focus our attention. I liked very much the part where we shared in pairs our answers; I think that helps so much to build confidence and give us a chance to know each other. You can't really expect a group of students to learn cooperatively before they get to know each other, so you have to create opportunities for that in class.
Making sure that students see that the teacher is on their same side, and not in front, is one of the basic ingredients of a successful learning process.
Jobs' speech brought Berger's Invitation to sociology. A humanistic perspective to my mind.We read it on our first year of the degree, and I really enjoyed it. Berger said that the reason why when we look back on our lives the dots seem to connect is because we desperately need to find a meaning to life. We need to believe we are actually going somewhere, that living is about going, and not just being. So, in his opinion, we deceive ourselves when we connect the dots. These matters can't be bothering my classmates just yet, as they only have a few dots behind.
As for the activity itself, I found it very interesting and amusing. The video was interesting, and the introductory chat we had before watching it revealed how it related to us, granting that attention would be payed. Then, of course, knowing that we would have to answer some questions, and knowing the questions beforehand, helped greatly focus our attention. I liked very much the part where we shared in pairs our answers; I think that helps so much to build confidence and give us a chance to know each other. You can't really expect a group of students to learn cooperatively before they get to know each other, so you have to create opportunities for that in class.
Making sure that students see that the teacher is on their same side, and not in front, is one of the basic ingredients of a successful learning process.
Silent way and suggestopedia
Well, silent way was something different, that's for sure. Our classmates showed us a video during their presentation and it seemed really difficult for the teacher. Well, maybe it seemed difficult to me because I find it so hard to remain silent. Still, the teacher "talked" with his face, his arms, his body... so he was silent, but not passive by any means. Since we didn't experience the method on us, I can't really imagine how it would feel to learn that way. I think the teacher and the students need to create a secure atmosphere, because being silent actually makes you more exposed in a way. And I think you also need to be more careful not not hurt anyone's feelings.
I liked the idea of applying the general idea behind silent way; creating a space for your students' speech, listening. One of our readings last week said that being a bad speaker is a difficult art; well, listening is much harder to master. Just taking whatever the other has to say, without seeing yourself in a tennis match, waiting for the ball to reach to you so you can send it back over the net.
And then it was our turn: suggestopedia. It is great to see that we went a long way since the first days after we got the assignment, when one of our groupmates felt desperate because she said she couldn't understand a word. No doubt she was experiencing the psychological barriers suggestopedia tries to tear down. And then, we read the text the four of us together, and it was great, a real dialogic reading, and we were all set to go. We had our doubts on how to use the video we created, and the ideas we got in the feedback after our presentation would probably have worked better but, nevertheless, I felt happy with what we did. I really like my groupmates. I knew one of them from our second year, although I never had the chance to work with her, and the other two were new to me. They are very easy going and work hard, so things run smoothly. One of them is quite shy, so I think the rest of us will have an opportunity to practise the silent way method, and see if we make more space for her in the coming assignments.
I liked the idea of applying the general idea behind silent way; creating a space for your students' speech, listening. One of our readings last week said that being a bad speaker is a difficult art; well, listening is much harder to master. Just taking whatever the other has to say, without seeing yourself in a tennis match, waiting for the ball to reach to you so you can send it back over the net.
And then it was our turn: suggestopedia. It is great to see that we went a long way since the first days after we got the assignment, when one of our groupmates felt desperate because she said she couldn't understand a word. No doubt she was experiencing the psychological barriers suggestopedia tries to tear down. And then, we read the text the four of us together, and it was great, a real dialogic reading, and we were all set to go. We had our doubts on how to use the video we created, and the ideas we got in the feedback after our presentation would probably have worked better but, nevertheless, I felt happy with what we did. I really like my groupmates. I knew one of them from our second year, although I never had the chance to work with her, and the other two were new to me. They are very easy going and work hard, so things run smoothly. One of them is quite shy, so I think the rest of us will have an opportunity to practise the silent way method, and see if we make more space for her in the coming assignments.
Grammar-translation and audiolingual
We had our first two group presentations on English teaching methods on the first lesson of the week. One group taught us some French with the grammar-translation method, and the other one used the audiolingual method to teach English to us.
Grammar-translation seems a really outdated method, which relies heavily on individual written exercises and, therefore, is mainly aimed at developing reading and writing skills. It was interesting to see that most of us thought that this old fashioned method wasn't used at all nowadays, until one of our classmates pointed out that it is still very common and our teacher told us that our urge to translate English words into Basque or Spanish is a symptom of having been exposed to this method. Still, the exercise our classmates proposed (translating a French poem) was fun, but I guess that if we had done it individually instead of in pairs, it wouldn't have been half as nice.
I guess I felt comfortable with the method because I am familiar with it. It is quite amazing to realise that we can easily get used to doing things in a certain way, even if we don't particularly like it. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"...
For audiolingual, we repeated several times a small dialogue, and I also felt like traveling back in time. Repeating the dialogue piece by piece all together made me feel a bit silly, and brought religion to my mind, I don't know why. I didn't like that part, not because of anything my classmates did, but because of the vague memories it triggered. You never know what a melody, a situation or a dialogue will bring to other people's minds; an activity that seems harmless to you can be disturbing to somebody else, and something that you might fear will be too plain can be a blast for others. I guess you always have to leave some space for surprise when you are teaching (and learning!).
As for the classmates who did the presentations, I do know that there is more pressure and anxiety with the presentations this year, because they have to be done in English, but in general they seemed to be quite calm, although sometimes it was a bit more noticeable that one just to get there and finish up the presentation as quickly as possible.
Grammar-translation seems a really outdated method, which relies heavily on individual written exercises and, therefore, is mainly aimed at developing reading and writing skills. It was interesting to see that most of us thought that this old fashioned method wasn't used at all nowadays, until one of our classmates pointed out that it is still very common and our teacher told us that our urge to translate English words into Basque or Spanish is a symptom of having been exposed to this method. Still, the exercise our classmates proposed (translating a French poem) was fun, but I guess that if we had done it individually instead of in pairs, it wouldn't have been half as nice.
I guess I felt comfortable with the method because I am familiar with it. It is quite amazing to realise that we can easily get used to doing things in a certain way, even if we don't particularly like it. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"...
For audiolingual, we repeated several times a small dialogue, and I also felt like traveling back in time. Repeating the dialogue piece by piece all together made me feel a bit silly, and brought religion to my mind, I don't know why. I didn't like that part, not because of anything my classmates did, but because of the vague memories it triggered. You never know what a melody, a situation or a dialogue will bring to other people's minds; an activity that seems harmless to you can be disturbing to somebody else, and something that you might fear will be too plain can be a blast for others. I guess you always have to leave some space for surprise when you are teaching (and learning!).
As for the classmates who did the presentations, I do know that there is more pressure and anxiety with the presentations this year, because they have to be done in English, but in general they seemed to be quite calm, although sometimes it was a bit more noticeable that one just to get there and finish up the presentation as quickly as possible.
My experience as a language learner
I have just read over what I wrote on my experience learning English last year, and there isn't much I could add to those memories, I think. So, instead of trying to squeeze my brain on that, I would like to share my thoughts on another topic, closely linked with learning in general, related to ways of doing.
Since the beginning of the Minor, we have been told about the importance of consistency in the methods used to teach English. We have also been told similar things on how children should learn how to write, for instance, because it can be very disturbing or harmful for some to shift from a constructivist method to a traditional one all of a sudden.
I can obviously see the point of the advice we have been given, and I know that those children who have difficulties adapting to change, or children who live in particularly unstable environments or circumstances can suffer a lot from the lack of consistency in the teaching style and methods used at school. But still, I believe in the benefits of diversity, even when it comes to methods and styles. Offering the experience of diversity in teaching styles and methods to each child, taking into account that the threshold which will separate diversity from chaos will be different for each person, can improve chances to learn, I believe, because it creates opportunities to learn different and diverse things.
There are no good or bad methods, there is only good or bad teachers. That is where we need to be consistent, when it comes to having good teachers. And, even then, the odd bad teacher is also needed in order to appreciate the good ones.
Since the beginning of the Minor, we have been told about the importance of consistency in the methods used to teach English. We have also been told similar things on how children should learn how to write, for instance, because it can be very disturbing or harmful for some to shift from a constructivist method to a traditional one all of a sudden.
I can obviously see the point of the advice we have been given, and I know that those children who have difficulties adapting to change, or children who live in particularly unstable environments or circumstances can suffer a lot from the lack of consistency in the teaching style and methods used at school. But still, I believe in the benefits of diversity, even when it comes to methods and styles. Offering the experience of diversity in teaching styles and methods to each child, taking into account that the threshold which will separate diversity from chaos will be different for each person, can improve chances to learn, I believe, because it creates opportunities to learn different and diverse things.
There are no good or bad methods, there is only good or bad teachers. That is where we need to be consistent, when it comes to having good teachers. And, even then, the odd bad teacher is also needed in order to appreciate the good ones.