Day 1
We re-watched each of the clips, and I began to use the vocabulary in the types of sentences and sentence-strings in which they were going to see them in the original text.
The previous night, I had written three summaries: one of each video. I included statements in the summaries that were blatantly false, and others that could be interpreted as true or false, depending on how you read them. They are at school, but on Monday, I'll attach them here. I put one of them in large letters up on the screen (you could do this with a projector, a doc cam, or just by writing) and had the kids sit in pairs with one facing the summary and one facing away. The first student began to read, slowly, to the second student. When the reader read a lie, the second student pointed rudely (on instruction from me :D) and said, "Mentiris!" That student then had to provide the correct information. The reader then had to begin at the beginning of the sentence and read it correctly.
When I hit the bell, the two stood up and switched roles, whether they'd finished or not. They then began again at the start of the passage. It gives students who are struggling a little more with the listening to then have the chance to read the passage for themselves, and it provides repetition for both of them.
After they'd read the passage the second time through, I got up and read the passage, and they got to call me a liar. It meant that I heard various corrections for various errors, and the kids got to hear how other students interpreted various statements. Then we voted on which correction we liked. At the end, we all read the corrected one together. We got through two of the three.
Day 2
We did a running dictation of the third summary - Hocus Pocus. In pairs, student select a runner and a writer. I post the text down the hallway (I always post two copies in opposite directions so it doesn't get overly crowded in the hallway). The runner runs down the hall, memorizes everything they can in the first sentence, and brings that information back to the writer. The writer writes all of this. The runner's job is finished when s/he has conveyed all the information in the first sentence. The two then sit and illustrate that sentence.
Then, they switch jobs. The writer does the runner's job and the runner the writer's.
Any time the group had questions, they sent a runner to me. I sat in a centralized location so that
(a) the kids always knew where to find me and
(b) it never appeared that I was too busy to talk to them, because I was surrounded by a group.
When they finished, I checked their work for spelling, missing words, etc. The first group to get their work to have no errors at all got either a Jolly Rancher or two extra points. (you'd be shocked at how many wanted the jolly ranchers.)
Day 3
We read through the dictation together, and anyone who still had errors corrected them. We made sure everyone understood the whole thing. Then I gave them a quiz. They had two choices:
1. Find four false statements and write down the false information.
2. Find four false statements, and rewrite the sentence so that it's true (but not by just putting non).
If they chose the second, they got 1.5 points instead of just 1.
Day 4
I told them about Apuleius and Quintilian (Latine). We talked about where they were from - which meant discussing Carthage, directions, etc. briefly - and interesting stories. I explained to them what the story The Golden Ass is, because we're going to read selections from it later, and we talked about how Apuleius was accused of bewitching an old woman. We discussed the Apologia, what an apologia is, and how, precisely, he got into trouble. We acted out what Apuleius was accused of doing (bewitching an elderly wealthy woman so she'd marry him).
Then, I asked them to, with a partner, read the brief text from Apuleius' apology, out loud. Then we re-read it together and asked any questions. Then together in their partners, they - in their own words - made a list of the things that Apuleius felt the Romans felt defined a magician. I asked them whether what Apuelius had written in that sentence represented his opinion or peoples' opinions, and they felt, due to existimant, that he was representing others' opinions.
Then I asked them what was on their lists, and we made a collective class list of Apuleius' definitions of a magician. We then reread it and we asked the following questions:
1. Quis est?
2. Quid magus agit?
3. Quid ille pollet?
4. Quomodo?
5. Cur?
They said it helped them separate out the sentence and tell specifically what was going on.
Monday, we'll read Quintilian's version, and we'll make a Venn Diagram suggesting what Apuleius thinks, what Quintilian thinks, and where those overlap. Then, we will look at statements in partners or small groups and determine whether:
(a) fieri potest
(b) veri simile est
and
(c) patetne sententia?
No comments:
Post a Comment