Re: Concerning the possible curriculum change

看板NTU09DFLL作者spacedunce5 (CJ)時間15年前 (2010/04/03 15:12)推噓6(6推 0噓 17→)

留言23則, 6人參與討論串3/4 (看更多)

Well, since someone mentioned my name, I guess it wouldn't hurt to talk a bit more. Actually, there are three main concerns regarding the future curriculum for DFLL students. One, Freshman English will be no more. Two, English Lab (聽講) will become an elective. Three, the number of Approaches to Literature classes will be reduced to two. (I've heard some murmurs about Western Literature as well, but I'm not too sure.) Let's discuss these one by one. As many people know, this year's Freshman English is a wholly new course, implementing a radical, innovative, and comprehensive teaching structure. The three instructors, Giles Witton-Davies, Karen Chung, and Guy Beauregard, teach three sections by rotation, with an extra hour for the "homeroom" instructor. Giles teaches vocabulary and, for homeroom students, does reading units; Guy talks about textual information and academic writing, with in-depth report projects for homeroom students; Ms. Chung teaches all the other miscellaneous stuff, including pronunciation, sight translation, Chinese Romanization (hanyu pinyin), history of English, etc. Truth be told, I have no idea what her homeroom section adds to the syllabus. One advantage to such a teaching approach is that we have a chance (XD) to experience three different teaching styles. Another one is that we learn these skills, deemed "essential," in our freshman year; by doing so, it is hoped, we will have an easier time in the rest of our courses. The disadvantages are quite obvious. We have lots of homework (and quizzes). If curriculum is repeated, our time is inefficiently used. The department accrues the opportunity cost of placing three marvelous instructors in the same course. So, what effect would abolishing FE have on future DFLL students? Let's look at the curriculum. Guy's units on finding, integrating, and documenting sources would be relegated to composition instructors, namely those teaching Composition III. This information is also in the MLA Handbook, as well as in our (remainder one class) Approaches to Literature textbook - albeit the style is a bit outdated (announcements on new styles could be made by the department office via email). His later units on textual information and analysis is presumably taught in Approaches to Literature, and, if not, the abundance of Literature courses available would surely cover it. As for his "mini-unit" on interpretation, I believe there is a course called "Literary Criticism" for the interested. Next, let's look at Giles's section. For vocabulary, I sincerely believe that learning new words is the obligation of every DFLL student, regardless of what class one takes. In fact, Giles teaches vocabulary mainly through a (British) textbook, and, if time allows, presents new, related words on the blackboard. It is a bit akin to high school English class. In reading, he encourages "pleasure reading," whereby one learns English through reading for enjoyment and keen observation. I admit, there is nothing exactly like this unit in any other course, but perhaps a short lecture on these matters could be added to Approaches to Literature or Composition I, or be made a topic of discussion in mentor meetings (導師會談). Last, but most definitely not least, is Ms. Chung. Her pronunciation units, by her own admission, are almost exactly the same as what she does in English Lab; the miscellaneous units, in my humble opinion, are not so essential as to mandate teaching them to freshman - with the exception of mechanics (such as punctuation), which should be taught in Composition I. Even so, one of her units, book sharing, I greatly appreciate, for it showcases one of the most interesting merits to knowing good English: a broader window on the world through original texts or English translation (which are generally more prolific). However, again, this is not essential. The second issue of contention is whether English Lab should be turned into an elective. I am vehemently opposed to such a decision! One may say that, for listening skills, students need only take courses taught in English to improve - and one would be right. But if one were to say that, for oral skills, Oral Training is sufficient, one would be ignorantly wrong. OT classes, to my knowledge, mainly focus on getting the student to want to speak, or to overcome anxieties about speaking in, English. The courses are organized around activities in which speaking aloud is required. Yet, for issues of pronunciation and sentence stress, OT is woefully inadequate. That is why English Lab is such an important class. Also, if one could choose, and does choose, not to take EL, and one did not have to take FE, one would ineluctably be divested of the opportunity of being required to take part in a course to improve one's oral abilities - and, as everyone concedes, "requirement" is an extremely effective incentive. Finally, we come to the last issue of Approaches to Literature. Should the class size be allowed to inflate to seventy-odd people? This actually depends on the teaching style of the instructor. For example, 黃宗慧 (TT) and 朱偉誠 (囧) both employ a rather passive style, with lectures sparsely interrupted by short periods of Q&A; 李紀舍 uses, I have heard, a more flexible style relying heavily on discussion. For the first two teachers, I believe a larger class would have no major consequences, and maybe even deter them from taking attendance so often (XD). On the other hand, for the third teacher, it would be difficult to maintain control of the classroom during a lengthy and meaningful discussion, as evidenced in Freshman Chinese (XD). Of course, more TAs would solve this problem, but due to department finance issues, the TA that Prof. Lee has already is paid for out of his own pocket. On the whole, though, I believe smaller class size a better conduit for learning. This also applies to all the other Literature courses. In conclusion, the decisions made by the department regarding its courses has great impact on its student body. We, the students, should have more say in what changes should be made, if any. Even though the Student Government was founded for this express purpose, I have yet to see any action on their part. When this happens, we, the individual students, must speak out. CJ ※ 引述《lwsun (大叔)》之銘言： : ※ 引述《mandy14039 (Mandy Lu)》之銘言： : : Thanks for 大叔's video. Ms.Chung's talk did arouse some students' attention. : : Some of us discussed after Guy's class as well as in our Freshman Chinese class. : : There are two separate (possible) changes about future DFLL courses. : : The fisrt one is to remove the Freshman English or not. : : The other one is the size of Literature courses. : : I know there are many classmates who agree with Ms.Chung's opinion. : : However, I also think that before we want to convey our ideas to the school : : or the DFLL office, we should first hear what others think. : : The problem is that we are not in the same class so there are few chances for : : us to discuss, maybe more specifically, on these curriculum issues. : : Let's use this place to share our opinions:) : First, please forgive me for writing such poor words. : I just chatted with C.J. on the MSN, and he mentioned something interesting. : We talked about if the materials that Ms. Chung, Giles, and Guy taught us so : far is replaceable or not, and I said maybe Guy's MLA style is the most : important thing than those of Ms. Chung and Giles, because we'll learn : linguistics in the future. As to the vocabularies, I'm sure we'll keep on : learning them in every course. But, C.J. pointed out the truth told by a : senior student. Actually, when attending the course of Junior Composition, : we'll have chance to learn about the MLA style, so it turns out to be : replaceable too, and Guy just taught the things that we'll learn when we're : juniors. : Therefore, I was confused. If we'll contact with these things again in the : near future, why should we learn them in advance? I guess maybe they want us : to establish the foundation of future learning. Afterall, some of us are not : quite so good in the aspect of lessons. I think they want us to be fully : prepared when facing the incoming challenges. : So, it seems to still be a controversy worth discussing, and no wonder : professors of DFLL are keeping arguing. What's other classmates' opinion? -- Churchill: "War does not determine who is right, but who is left." http://www.wretch.cc/blog/spacedunce5 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.228.181.227 ※ 編輯: spacedunce5 來自: 61.228.181.227 (04/03 15:13)

→

spacedunce5

04/03 15:14, , 1^F

04/03 15:14, 1^F

推

mandy14039

04/03 17:42, , 2^F

04/03 17:42, 2^F

→

mandy14039

04/03 17:43, , 3^F

04/03 17:43, 3^F