I don't know how on earth I thought that since I had also adopted an open-source text produced by the University of Texas-Austin, Français interactif. It is only $30 if you opt to print it and have it shipped, but all the materials are available for free online. I figured it was a good first step since students (and I) would still have some traditional support and a skeleton of sorts to rely on as I worked on fleshing out the course will real resources produced for native French speakers. It has a good variety of exercises, videos, and more elaborate assignments, just like Chez Nous, but for a fraction of the price.
I experienced buyer's remorse almost immediately after it arrived because I was still wrestling with how much of the textbook to include in the class, what chapters, what pages, what exercises, etc. I kept reminding myself the goal was to STOP doing that to myself (and the students). I felt like because I had the textbook I HAD to include it. I felt like I HAD to include it because going from a (full, expensive) textbook package to nothing would be too hard. Yet, if I had opted for a clean break from ALL textbooks, I probably would have saved myself some time and anguish. Hindsight...
One teaching approach that quickly emerged when I contemplated my breakup was CI (comprehensible input). The thinking is students need lots of exposure to quality input in the target language before they can be expected to produce their own language. Many of the practitioners use TPRS (Teaching Proficiency Through Reading and Storytelling). A google search of CI or TPRS in the French classroom will bring up a lot of sites about stories and novels written by non-native speakers that are used in the classrooms. Theoretically, the language in them is just a bit above the students' current level so there is a lot that is familiar, which serves as a scaffold, but there are a few new elements that help them grow and increase their proficiency. It seems like CI practitioners are on one side of a continuum where they do almost all the preparation of culturally empty lessons while students do little active learning. On the other end of the continuum are the ACTFL endorsed practices like adapting the task, not the (culturally relevant) text, where teachers and students both have a high level of preparation for each class period. I experimented a bit with CI and found the students to be engaged and to have absorbed a good amount of vocab, but they also got by without having to prepare anything themselves outside of class. If my understanding is accurate, does that make CI a better choice for middle school or high school than college? If so, does that mean using CI from time to time, like when introducing a unit for example, is appropriate but it isn't necessarily appropriate as the main teaching method?
While grappling with these reflections, I also identified and adapted some authentic resources to adhere to ACTFL's recommendation to get students using the target language in meaningful ways that are realistic for a given proficiency level. They included:
- the song Papaoutai by Stromae to discuss different types of families
- Thierry's CV to compare CVs to resumés
- an article on French pastimes
- another on global natural resource management
- photos of recipes from Quebec to practice the partitive
- a video of a school district dietitian explaining the guidelines for balanced meals
Overall I was pleased with each resource and the worksheets I developed to fully leverage each one, but it was very time consuming. I'm imagining our repository as chock-full of cool websites and activities, but I'm wondering if it is better to create a small repertoire of authentic texts that can be modified in numerous ways depending on the nature of the class and the proficiency level of the students. I could modify both my approach to the texts (how I use them to give students input) and output activities (what students DO with the input).
Somewhere near the end of October I came to terms with the gradual breakup and realized I needed an adjustment period to move away from Chez Nous and to experiment with some of the textbook-free principles I had gleaned over the summer and fall. I also came to terms with what would be "appropriate" for the college level and accepted that occasionally using CI will work for me.
Principles
- use authentic resources produced for native French speakers
- select resources with cultural relevance whenever possible
- adapt the tasks for each resource, not the text
- aim for good scaffolding that includes the following ideas
- begin with interpretive questions that verify comprehension and help familiarize them with the new concepts and/or vocab
- repeat the new concepts/vocab OFTEN and in different ways
- move to interpersonal questions so students interact and have to produce their own language, thus learning by doing
- culminate in some kind of demonstration of their knowledge (on the order of "presentational" in ACTFL parlance). This could be answering an essay question on a written exam, summarizing a discussion with a partner or small group for the whole class, or answering an analytical question on an assignment
Now that I've identified and implemented some general principles I feel more prepared to work towards finalizing the breakup. In retrospect, I needed to do it gradually so I could maintain a level of confidence with the students and reassure myself that they were still acquiring solid language skills.
Phases:- Phase 1 (FREN 103 fall 2018) was gradually subtracting the textbook from my course design and lesson plans, injecting some authentic materials, and thinking more explicitly about documenting assessment
- Phase 2 (FREN 203 spring 2019) will be even more subtraction and injection with a greater emphasis on assessment, specifically: 1) IPAs and 2) systematizing/habituating how I document the assessment of my courses
- Phase 3 (FREN 101 or 103 fall 2019) will be no textbook, although I may use Français interactif's vocabulary videos and lists as the basis of some units
No comments:
Post a Comment