The scene: A professor sits in front of a computer. Two textbooks are open on the desk beside the computer. A sticky note is attached to one text that says, “Student A loves this.” A sticky note is attached to the other textbook that says, “Students B, C, D, E want this.”
Much discussion and research in biblical language teaching concerns questions about best methodology. Does the living language method result in better language retention than grammar translation method?
Very little research is available in the field of biblical language teaching that examines what educators have done over a period of time, how it was perceived by students, what changes were made because of these perceptions, and how these changes were perceived. This type of teaching that reacts to the perceptions of students as evidence of the need for change, implements new practice, then evaluates that practice, is called reflective practice. (Cardoza, 124) It has also been called action research. It is different from scientifically-driven research since it includes the educator and subjects as active participants in the research, but scientific data is often included in the collection of data that is used in the research process. (Chapman, p. 7)
Reflective practice naturally places the educator’s focus on their own work and growth. Thus it can come across as if the educator is concerned with self rather than with the impact of practice on students. Rather than being solely self-focused, the reflective teacher is observant of their own actions and is able to question why a problem occurs, is able to form hypotheses about what changes in policies or procedures might solve it, is in a position to implement changes, and is capable of systematically observing and documenting the results of the changes. (McKernan, 45)
Reflective practice is sometimes most valuable when a change that we implement doesn’t go as we hoped it might. In 2017, I decided to try using a different textbook with my beginning Hebrew students in the hope that they would experience more success in mastering reading comprehension earlier in the course. The original text (Textbook A) was a traditional grammar with copious explanations of verb forms, verb paradigms, and vocabulary lists in each chapter. Some of the translation exercises were long; but each indificual item represented a complete sentence or paragraph.
The new text (textbook B) did not include paradigm charts in the chapters; and the vocabulary was provided in long lists that students were instructed to memorize every few chapters. There were numerous places in the chapters where students could fill in blanks to remind themselves about things they learned in the chapter. Instead of individual translation exercises, each numbered item in a set of exercises was part of a verse or set of verses that were to be translated and read together.
A few weeks into the course, I noted that several students were experiencing difficulties that were not consistent with the type of difficulties I was accustomed to seeing with beginning students. So I tried some additional research.
I gave one student the previous textbook (textbook A) and asked her to evaluate it. I also posted a question, asking how many students were interested in changing textbooks for the spring semester.
All but one student voted to change textbooks. The one student who liked the new text agreed to change texts but kept the new text as a reference.
The student who evaluated textbook A sent me an email, saying that it was a “breath of fresh air.” She described specific difficulties she had with the new text, which enabled me to document the reasons why students were likely having difficulties.
Traditional scientific research would not have traced these problems. They are important things to documnet in the field of language teaching. No one likes to discuss the reasons for failure; but if we don’t discuss them, we can ignore the impact of our behaviors and continue using the same teaching methods that may be harmful to students. (Brookfield, p. 93)
Sources
Brookfield. Stephen. 1995. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cardoza, Freddy. 2019. Christian Education: A Guide to the Foundations of Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Chapman, Mark. 2018. “Action Research Ethics for DMIN Students.” Cultural Intelligence for DMin Education, Journal of Christian Ministry 7, Curriculum Action Research: A HANDBOOK OF METHODS and Resources for the Reflective Practitioner, 2nd Ed. London: Kogan Page.
- Learning From My Younger Self - February 10, 2024
- more reflections on ITD - June 30, 2023
- On travel while at ITD: reflections after day 1 - June 27, 2023
- ITD day 1 - June 27, 2023
- ITD day 1 - June 27, 2023
- Job Descriptions, Inclusivity, and Equity for People with Disabilities - October 15, 2022
- Traveling without a Guide Dog: Experience with Cane and Walker - October 14, 2022
- Disability and Church, Intersection - June 11, 2022
- Review: When Chronic Pain and Illness Take Everything Away - June 11, 2022
- Grammar and Style Resources for Writers - June 9, 2022
