While I taught Greek for many years (both Hellenistic Koine and Classical) I used much more traditional, grammar-translation methods. If I had had access to materials to allow me to use a communicative approach I would have done so, knowing that this is a far more effective way to teach any language. I taught English for Speakers of Other Languages at the University of Louisville while working on my doctorate and writing about constituent structure in New Testament Greek. The disconnect between the methods used at the seminary to teach Greek and the ones I used at UofL to teach English was jarring! So.... I've been interested in doing the kind of work Jonathan and I are now doing for decades.
I now teach both English and Spanish in a dual language setting using communicative methods targeting listening, speaking, reading, and writing, but focussing most heavily on reading. I teach for bi-literacy, not simply bilingualism. As Jonathan and I work together, I hope to create materials that will allow teachers who might not otherwise have the confidence to teach using a communicative method to have what they need to begin doing so.
This is very true. To illustrate the method we are proposing we thought it best to pick a point in the process where the students had already learned some things. This lesson on John 1:1-5 could not be used on the first day of class. A prior lesson on asking and answering questions, for example, is assumed.Wes Wood wrote: Initial Impressions:
1) In the lesson there is a great deal of information taken for granted besides τἰς, ποῦ, and πότε. This is understandable in a setting where your audience is already familiar with John 1:1-9 in English, but it makes the lesson much less helpful for those who are not. It also makes stating your learning objectives much more difficult (if you chose to do so).
Do you still have questions about this. I thought Jonathan did a good job of addressing it, but if you want to know more from me, just ask!Wes Wood wrote: 2) I think you and your students would benefit from increasing the number of the clauses you are teaching at once. It would give you more information to work with and would let you focus on overlapping vocabulary if you desired. I have found that if I focus on too small of an objective it is more difficult for me not to speed through it. It may be better to make two or three passes through the same material. E.g. Teach through the first three clauses then start at the beginning and cover those objectives again as a cumulative review.
Thank you. I put a good deal of work into some of the pictures, but clearly some work better than others. There is a lot of room for improvement here!Wes Wood wrote: 3) I love the pictures that you are using, but I think you need more of them. If I were a part of your class, I'm not sure that I would have been able to make all the connections you are trying to make. This is especially true with the pictures on pages 5 and 6. I envision myself thinking: Girl with sister? Girl without sister? Girl with hug? Girl without hug? etc.
I have nothing to add to what Jonathan wrote in response to your fourth and fifth points.
It definitely does help. Thank you.Wes Wood wrote:I hope some of this, at least, helps.
Jonathan raised an issue that I would like to elaborate on a little:
For each lesson I produce for English or Spanish, I write two objectives, one for the content I intend to teach (in the case of this Greek lesson, that would be John 1:1-5) and one for the language function or form or combination of function and form that I intend to teach. I tend to guard pretty heavily against addressing anything that would distract from that language objective. In the case of the lesson on John 1:1-5, Jonathan and I did not state a clear language objective before beginning, and the result is pretty clear. As you put it, "It... makes stating your learning objectives much more difficult (if you chose to do so)." Writing them after the fact is always a mistake!Jonathan Robie wrote:Micheal can respond to this better than I can. In his setting, I think he would probably say that his goal is not to teach each item explicitly, because it's good for students to riddle out some things from context, instead of having each thing explicitly taught. On the other hand, we have to teach enough that they can "get it". But he will probably respond and agree or disagree with me. And this lesson has not yet been road tested.
Thank you very much for your input, Wes. It's a delight to read your comments.