T.P.R.S. newbie Marc F. has switched over from the grammar grind and has some good questions about what to do after we ask ask a story. I’ll give my answers and maybe others can say their thing too in comments.
Marc writes:
I have been impressed with the re-writes that my students have been doing in the 10 minutes that I give them after we ask the story. I always write down any “out of bounds” words (although I try to keep them to a minimum) on the whiteboard and define them in L1 to establish meaning. Obviously, I also write the three (occasionally four) target structures as well. Do you leave the board as-is when the students do their re-write? I have been leaving everything up, as I believe that them seeing it as they write is just more repetitions and helps them establish meaning even more. Is this a good practice in your opinion?
Hells yea! There are a LOT of reasons why leaving vocab on the board is a great idea
A) the kids are still acquiring— both the retellers and the listeners– and reps = good.
B) you want brainpower going into processing (understanding) the language, not remembering how to say/write it (which is very difficult for beginners). Output is hard and ideally we want to delay it as long as possible, and support it as much as possible.
C) they are self-conscious, so support will make it easier = happier, less stressed kids.
Second, I know that a part of the story cycle is to re-write the story that the class told, but sometimes with variations and more detail. Is this what is considered the embedded reading?
Sort of. An embedded reading has two basic defining properties:
(a) It is a basic story, and two (or more) progressively more complex versions of the same story These stories recycle the vocab you used in the asked version of the story.
(b) Each version contains all of the target structures, and you can add a few new words.
There is an English sample (from my workshops) here: embedded reading 1 page summary. This should more or less clarify it. The aim is basically “scaffolding:” you want to make people comfy with a simple, short version, then get reps (etc) from 2-3 longer versions.
Also, I have been combining elements from different classes’ stories to create one story that all four of my Spanish 2 sections will read. I’ve done the same with my two sections of Spanish 1. I’ve been doing this so that I am not re-writing four stories per night, and also so that students can be exposed to a slightly different angle to the story (they are all based on the same script however). Is this on point?
I think this is an AMAZING idea. Especially if the kids in the classes know each other, the idea of mixing details (especially ones they come up with) is great. This is personalisation. How cool is it to create cross-class connections and to put kids into stories? It is also a solid mental health strategy: you need to have time for your family, hobbies, sports, etc. You are also creating novelty, which the brain craves to stay focused.
I personally don’t do this– we invent and ask one story in class, and I give them a reading that contains those structures– but my colleague Leanda does and it rocks. I think this is great. As long as you are repeating restricted amounts of high-frequency vocab in interesting (and, ideally, personal) ways, the kids are learning.
I think you’re doing everything right. You are supporting comprehensibility, making kids feel at ease, personalising vocab, putting a new spin on old vocab, and saving yourself from burnout by not spending 8 hours each night madly pecking away at your keyboard while the wife sulks and the kids act like it’s a country song, wondering who Daddy is.
t.p.r.s. q&a 