First, I'll get the unpleasantness out of the way: The best thing about the BBR article, once again, was that it was short. That will be all which I shall say about that.
Next, is our Daniels and Zimmerman chapter. This, unsurprisingly, was more helpful, although it did echo a good bit of what we saw in Torvani last week (and even cited it, too). Of particular interest to me was that students tend to have trouble visualizing what they read. This typically shows up in math and science (according to our readings), but also in other subjects, like Latin. For instance, if you were to look at one of the (depressingly brief) readings on the Roman legions in the textbook, you'd see depressingly short description stating that a legionary wore iron armor made out of "banded strips," with a short sword and large shield.
Take a moment to picture that.
Now, look at these fellows:
![]() |
Get some, Germans |
"If they can't follow you, or visualize what you're saying/talking about, they're lost. And lost students do not learn." I feel like this should be prominently displayed somewhere. For my benefit even more than my students. After all, ~I~ know exactly what declensions and conjugations are, the difference between tenses and voices and cases, why you have to make adjectives agree with the noun the modify (and no, they will NOT always copy the endings)...so why can't my students grasp this?
ReplyDeleteOf course, as soon as we begin thinking this way, we have completely lost sight of why we are teaching. We are teaching precisely because THEY do not understand, and the goal is to insure that they do understand.
And yes, that picture is a far better explanation than "bands of armor."
Get some indeed!
ReplyDelete