When I read about this approach, I suspected it wouldn’t work for me, since it requires repetition and memorization of verbal cues spontaneously, without the aid of writing. My memory is very poor, and worse when it’s under the duress of being noticed by others.

Still, I went into the lesson with an open mind, volunteering to be one of the six “victims” of Beverly’s teaching. Here are some responses following to Bev’s reflection template, that incorporate ideas from our reading as well as response to the exercise.

Teacher: Watchful; “theatrical director.” Bev: Spoke slowly and clearly. Held up rods and said a word, and from her gestures the meaning of the word — a color, number, indefinite article or verb — was very clear, even to me. Calm, patient. She listened intently for the best pronunciation of the word so that she could get us to model that.

I liked her manner, but felt put on the spot (not her fault) when I was asked a question.

Teaching: structural; steps in only when necessary to correct or clarify (monitor role); use of manipulatives.

Educational Outcomes: Those with some grounding in Germanic languages picked up the basics quickly, as did the international students who have a more highly developed aptitude for language learning. By the end of the lesson, those around the edges of the classroom who weren’t directly participating were equally capable as the “inner circle” of completing the tasks of giving and taking rods of various colors and numbers.

However, I found the approach very difficult and my outcome was about a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Context: According to book: good for large groups and beginners, and used for Peace Corp training. In our class: small group of six surrounded by the rest of the class totaling 15 students. Relaxed atmosphere due to nature of educational environment and our level of comfort with one another.

Subject Matter: Traditionally, the “music” of the language; vocabulary; fundamental grammar. In our exercise it was as described above: colors, etc. As far as the sound of the language, I think this is a useful tool, even for me: getting us to repeat and model each other on the distinct sounds of (in this case) Afrikaans. We didn’t use the chart much, and by the time we did I was already lost, so I can’t gauge its effectiveness personally. However, some students snapped it right up. I don’t know if that’s because it’s a good tool, or the lower affective filter or higher aptitude of some people. Some of the people who, I noticed, were doing well were those who hadn’t been in the “inner circle,” and thus their brains were probably less tired.

Language: Functional vocabulary, patterns, basic grammar.

My thoughts: I appreciate the thinking behind this: that it can be productive just to use the grammar as well as topically or functionally subdivide it.

Culture: None, and this is, in my mind, a deficit. It is completely severed from cultural context and conversation.

Learners: Following the orchestra leader. Carrying a lot of weight in the lesson, scaffolding each other with guesses and repetitions of new words and with pronunciation. Whisper hints to each other when the teacher calls on someone who doesn’t know the answer.  In the beginning I didn’t feel too much pressure as I pretty much kept up with the vocabulary. But after five minutes my anxiety level increased along with the addition of new words. By the end I’d given up and was even tuning out in exasperation. I was embarrassed. When I feel really out-of-it, there’s some emotional pain in trying and failing, so I stop trying.

Learning: I’m not sure how this is distinct from “educational outcomes.” I’ll have to ask Bev.