Here’s a new, reaaaaaally useful PPT inspired by Linda Li’s “Like/Dislike” activity I saw back at iFLT last summer. The concept is simple—slides have two images you can use to ask an “either/or” question. That’s it, no words, so you can say anything you like. Oh, and click the question mark in the corner to jump to a random slide (after prompted to “Enable Content” for Macros upon opening the file).
**Updated 12.13 with this clue tracking sheet for teams**
Every Latin program has that perfunctory “Roman house” unit in which students memorize the layout and names of various rooms in a vīlla or domus, and then read (or translate) a narrative loosely connected to those rooms. This got me thinking; is there a more meaningful way to learn about the Roman house through a game? To be clear, gamification usually sucks (e.g. playing a board game to teach prepositions), so the key is to align the game objective with a communicative task in Latin. On Episode 42 of Tea with BVP, Bill stated that “we communicate in order to learn, build, create, entertain, and socialize,” so what better task covering at least 3 of those purposes than a “whodunit” based on Clue™?
After attending Michele Whaley’s presentation on Embedded Readings at NTPRS, I was convinced that we’ve been playing a game of Telephone since she and Laurie Clarcq began sharing the concept back in 2012. It turns out that it’s “yes and no,” but there is an important distinction that is being made in current Embedded Reading practice. Whereas many of us THINK we’re creating Embedded Readings, most of us might be just adapting authentic texts, class stories, or textbook narratives. Those products are fine, but aren’t necessarily Embedded Readings. Most of us are missing two key features in our adapted readings that make them better:
VERBA is an Apples to Apples clone game for language learners designed by the great folks who brought us the Picturae database. Aside from playing the game as-is following original rules (during which I monitor groups and deliver CI by asking students about their choices, etc.), I now use the white noun cards during storyasking/storytelling (e.g. “Once upon a time, there was a ______<reveal card>”).
What makes this different from TPRS? Vocabulary is limited to what’s on the cards, which is already in the target language along with a super clear image. You’re less likely to go out of bounds with infrequent target language vocabulary, or have to accept English details from students. On the other hand, you might WANT to accept English details from students (especially if they’re compelling). In that case, use the VERBA cards as non-examples for your students to reject, and then take their cute/hilarious/dark suggestion, etc.
What makes this different from using Rory’s Story Cubes? Story cubes contain images ONLY, no target language, so using VERBA might help keep your story more “on rails.” For an interesting storyasking/storytelling hybrid, use the white VERBA noun cards for details AND Rory’s Story Cubes: Actions set for verbs.
I have an upcoming workshop at CANE’s 2016 Annual Meeting on how to continue Teaching with CI. My abstract reads:
[…] Despite the success and enjoyment of experimenting with CI, many Latin teachers tend to abandon CI methods and strategies after a brief yet blissful period of refreshing change in favor of familiar ways. This workshop addresses how to continue using CI after the honeymoon phase ends by establishing routines, maintaining engaging activities, and having assessment systems in place to support you and your students.
These next 13 blog posts form a CI Program Checklist (emphasis on “a“), which serves as the basis for my workshop. The checklist is organized by words that begin with the letter C…they’re all the rage right now.
The Cs
Classroom MGMT
Comprehensibility
Camaraderie
Counting
Community
*Compellingness*
Let’s get right to it:
Magister P. 