The APAC Roundtable discussion at the Convention on February 25th at noon will broach the subject:
To debate this matter with you we have a guest panel of 3 who will argue that neither one-off recipes nor an abstract framework on their own are suitable starting points for class activities. It is the balance between a clear theory and practical work in class that is needed. Their reasoning will be based on CLIL, Web 2.0 and Affective learning practices.
Join the debate now by clicking on 'comments' below.
12 comments:
Hello there everyone,
I would like to start discussion by pointing out that, when teaching through CLIL methodology in Primary, we are normally told to bear in mind the balance between language and content and to try to scaffold them both properly. But what about the thinking skills, should they also be scaffolded at this level?
Come on, put on your cook's hat and start leaving your comments in order to write together a very useful recipe book.
Salva.
Hello Salva,
Maybe you should explain what you mean by 'scaffolding'.
Thx.
Tom
You're right Tom. Cooks sometimes take things for granted...
The word 'scaffolding' originally refers to the temporary framework used to support people and material in the construction or repair of buildings. When referring to educational settings, it is considered as a metaphor to illustrate the support that teachers give to learners while trying to help them with their learning.
Salva.
Salva, I think that mixing language and "interesting" content for the students is a good starting point to make "thinking skills" from either the teacher or the student flow.
Through content teachers create a need that motivated students fight to cover and here is, I think, where the useful "scaffolding" starts.
So, I see all your points of discussion well connected.
Cris
I think that scaffolding the tasks which we give our students is necessary for the overall 'thinking' process, especially when it comes to younger learners. I agree that giving our students motivating content will help them to develop their thinking skills, however, many tasks have to be scaffolded and closely guided to ensure maximum learning.
For example, whenever I decide to use a new tool in order to 'practise' a particular grammar point or structure we have been learning in the class, I give the theoretical class first. They learn the rule, make notes, ask questions, etc... This is perhaps the most boring part for students (and for the teacher!) but a necessary part. Then I may give them a task to do using a tool which motivates them. They may or may not remember to incorporate what they were learning into the task!! But without the scaffolding, the building would collapse before the walls even went up! This doesn't mean we have to teach them everything explicitly. Teaching them to think and to come up with their own conclusions is also a type of scaffolding.
I agree with Sue, but perhaps this previous theoretical and boring part isn't necessary since it seems the students usually forget it. (I find they even separate in their minds the theory from any practical activity).Why don't we let them ask what they need to perform the task with the motivating content we present? Of course the task should be closely guided as Sue says but let's forget about the boring part if possible.
That is so true. They rarely use the
theoretical part in practice! If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the books and focus on interesting content... but what about the dreaded 'curriculum'?!
In secondary education what I tend to do is to give learners lots of input and then let them discover what they have been using and what they could need in order to produce their output. Obviously, I think grammar is important but I agree with you that depending on how it is presented it can be dreadfully boring.
cris
I agree with both of you since my purpose, as a language teacher, is no other than the following: to enable students to interact (dealing with language and content at the same time). In my opinion, it is really important to fulfill students' willingness to advance in their learning process through practical activities. Little by little, all teachers should come up with their 'own theory of practice'.
"Little by little, all teachers should come up with their 'own theory of practice'." I like the thrust of this argument by Salva. It is bottom up instead of top down.
Hello everyone,
I think we should aim at striking a balance between theory and practice, which to me are not so dramatically different, anyway, since the findings of theoretical research are based on classroom observations and, after all, most researchers are/have been teachers themselves.
Think of scaffolding, for example. We hear this word a lot, but what does it actually mean, how do we get down to it and scaffold students? Finding out about the term and reading what other people have written about it helps us find new recipes and then adapt them to our teaching practices. As they say, there's nothing new under the sun!
See you at UPF!
Angels
Post a Comment