[B-Greek] Educational methods and techniques
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 06:06:25 EDT 2008
> As an educator, a thought just occurred to me after reading different posts about what textbooks people use. What do list members think about how different textbooks (e.g., Mounce's BBG) cater to different learning styles? I think perhaps the reason some people like Mounce so much is that it is very analytical in many ways, looking at endings, breaking the words up into morphological parts, etc. I'm sure some on this list are familiar with Howard Gardner's theories of Multiple Intelligences, and I would suspect that Mounce fits very well with the Mathematical-Logical intelligence. On the other hand, many people are more heavily weighted in the verbal-linguistic intelligence—is there another textbook which favors more conversation and producing language rather than analysis? I'm not sure how a language textbook could really cater to any of the other intelligences or learning styles—such as Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Naturalist, Musical (maybe?), Naturalist, or Existentialist. If there is some truth to this, than wouldn't professors pick textbooks which fit their learning/teaching styles? And if so, wouldn't they unwittingly use methodologies that fit very well for students who learn like they do, but not for many of the other students? And does the reasoning behind picking some curriculum and disparaging others have maybe a little more to do with personal comfort rather than sound educational backing? I've only been teaching a few years, and not Greek, but I did notice this trend in myself as well as my professors. Do some of the veteran teachers have any comments?
Jeffrey T. Requadt
Dietz Elementary
(520) 731-4000>
There is wisdom in what you say and also additional dimensions.
Yes, most ancient language training is done within a math/analytical
paradigm. (It applies to all of the books usually discussed on the
list, because they fall within the category of 'grammar-translation',
even if they don't produce translation homework.) My "Near Eastern
Languages and Culture" graduate advisor 'way back when' told me that
in the acceptance process they primarily looked at the Math scores of
SAT and GRE, not whether they spoke Hebrew or Arabic! I think that
current programs are most easily handled by persons for whom math is
easy. They succeed, and then reproduce the process. (By the way, I was
very successful in that process, I am not advocating a "non-math path"
because of finding any personal difficulty there. ha-hefex
TOY'NANTION. But I am advocating a 'non-math path' for the language
even for the math folk. See more below.)
The 'multiple intelligences' approach does not necessarily mean that
there need to be several different kinds of language courses. I would
argue that the 'math-oriented' approach doesn't really succeed for
anyone, because language is a different kind of entity. It is not
abstract analysis, nor is it learning facts about history, human
nature, literature, or biology. It is language, a kind of processing
and thinking that all human beings are uniquely endowed with by the
creator. (Even athiest linguists agree with this statement. It is
within protocol.) And language requires special kinds of training. It
is ultimately a system inside the heads of human beings and it is
normally built by matching an audio code to experiences. That process
usually entails all of the intelligences that you mentioned. One must
SEE (ORASIS) the experiences, the 'meanings' (AI DYNAMEIS), one must
HEAR (AKOH) the code and the experiences of TOUCH (AFH) and MOVEMENT
(KINESIS) of the body are certainly part of the experiences and
learning process. One sings, dances, plays, talks (yes talking is part
of the process of learning a language), negotiates interpersonal
relationships, analyses, and at some stage reads and writes a
symbolized abstraction of the code growing inside someone. In the end,
one has unconsciously developped and mapped a code to a finite string
of experiences, and that produces an infinitely recursive thing called
a language. Yes, these can be done in a classroom. They can be
approximated in books. And they can be mediated through second
language users.
So rather than have multiple language courses, I would argue for
having language courses with multiple experiences. There is something
compelling and memorable when a person hears ANOIKSON TO KERAMION //
ANOIKSON TO BIBLION and sees the person to whom spoken open a jar//a
book. A little node gets etched in a brain. KLEISON TO KERAMION //
KLEISON TO BIBLION. The experience and the etching are different than
translating the code into another code. The fruit, the final product
after 2000-3000 hours, is ultimately quite different, too.
This isn't rocket science. It's both more wonderful and more mundane.
And there is a place for the formulae and rules, but they are not the
food for growth.
ERRWSQE
Randall
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list