Revista desde el Sur

Recommendations

Info

otro lado, la encuesta al posteriori mostró que la mayoría consideró que su ortografía y lexis había mejorado, pero solamente uno reconoce su mejor desempeño al editar los trabajos escritos. Tabla 2 – Percepción de los estudiantes sobre su progreso en el uso escrito de la lengua Con referencia a las estrategias meta cognitivas, todos reconocieron que sus competencias orales habían mejorado, pero contrastando su percepción con las notas tomadas durante las presentaciones se advierte que dos estudiantes no siempre reconocen cuando cometen errores y deben trabajar más con su reflexión. Conclusiones Aunque las competencias lingüísticas no mejoraron sustancialmente durante el periodo que duro el estudio, el aspecto destacado del proyecto fue que todos los docentes aspirantes mostraron un aumento en la confianza en sí mismos como consecuencia del control sobre sus aprendizajes. Si bien la duración del proyecto no permitió una incorporación sistemática de los conceptos fundamentales del mismo, se presento una opción interesante para facilitar los aprendizajes. Para la docente investigadora, el estudio fue catalítico para generar cambios en su instrucción que fueron incorporados a los cursos del presente año. Se cree que además captó el interés de todos los involucrados al obtener una visión diferente sobre el aprendizaje del Inglés como lengua extranjera. Bibliografía Black, P., and Wiliam D. 1998. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 80. Retrieved on 26th August from: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001380980 Chamot. A.U., and O’Malley, J.M.,. 1994, The CALLA Handbook: Implementing Cognitive Academic Language Learning. Reading, MA. Addison-Wesley Chappuis, J., 2005, Helping Students Understand Assessment, Educational Leadership, November 2005 issue Cranton, P. 1994, Self-directed and Transformative Instructional Development, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 65, No. 6. Retrieved on 4th September from: https://catalog2.nmsu.edu:2131/cgi- bin/jstor/printpage/00221546/di975257/97p0047m/0-150.pdf?backcontext= page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=807b1211@nmsu.edu/01cc9933990050c31d3&0-150.pdf Dewey, J., (1904), The relation of theory to practice in education. In Galvez-Martin, M.E., Bowman, C., 1998, Reflection and the Preservice Teacher, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (Dallas, TX) Galvez-Martin, M.E., Bowman, C., 1998, Reflection and the Preservice Teacher, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (Dallas, TX), Retrieved on 10th September from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/11/05/63.pdf Giancarlo, C.F., & Facione, P.A. (2002). Insight assessment and critical thinking as reasoned judgment. Santa Clara, The California Academic Press. Retrieved 27th August from: www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/CT_Reflective%20Log.PDF Kerka, S., (2002), Journal Writing as an Adult Learning Tool, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Retrieved 6th September from: www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=27 Kuhn, D., (1986), Education for Thinking. In Galvez-Martin, M.E., Bowman, C., 1998, Reflection and the Preservice Teacher, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (Dallas, TX) Leahy et al., 2005. Classroom assessment. Educational Leadership, November issue Lizotte, D. et al. 2003, Assessment aligned with Curriculum, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Retrieved on 4th September from: http://hi-ce.org/iqwst/Papers/AERA_2003_rubrics_FINAL.pdf Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Popham, W.J., 2006, Assessment for learning, an endangered species?, Educational leadership, February 2006 Rubrics, Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2006, Retrieved 4th September from: www.language.ca Squires, G., 2002, Managing your learning, New York, Taylor & Francis Sternberg, R., 2003, What Is an “Expert Student?”. Educational Researcher, Vol. 32/8 Wallace, M. (1991) Training Foreign Language Teachers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Wiliam, D., 1998, Enculturating learners into communities of practice: raising achievement through classroom assessment, Retrieved 28th August from: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/education/publications/ECER98.pdf Winger. T., (2005). Grading to communicate. Educational Leadership, November 2005 issue 24
Pronunciation in the English Language Classroom: 10 Practical Questions Este artículo busca responder a ciertas preguntas que todo docente de Inglés debe formularse para decidir el lugar que se le dará a la pronunciación en su clase de Ingles. Juan Carlos Boyadji Egresado del Instituto de Profesores “Artigas”, posee el Certificado en TESOL de Trinity College London y el Certificado en la Fonética del Inglés de la Asociación Fonética Internacional. Se ha desempeñado en la enseñanaza pública y privada desde 1997, ingresando a la formación docente en el año 2000. Actualmente es docente de las asignaturas Fonética y Fonología I a IV, Lengua y Cultura IV y Lingüística en el Centro Regional de Profesores del Sur, Atlántida. These are questions I have considered important for every teacher to address in order to decide the place pronunciation is to be given in his/her English language classroom. The answers, unless otherwise noted, show my sole personal stance, and the reader is welcome to adopt his/her own standpoint. 1. Why should I teach pronunciation at all? Pronunciation teaching may be overt or covert. Every single English as a foreign language teacher does some pronunciation teaching, if anything when correcting a few of his/her students’ mistakes. While some students will learn without any overt teaching, some really need some aspects to be made explicit for they are beyond their conscious grasp. Much of pronunciation teaching is concerned with raising awareness and allowing students to hypothesise and manipulate the target language. 2. Which variety should I teach? I believe teachers should teach that variety which they speak and with which they are most familiar. Be it Received Pronunciation, General American or another standard variety, it should not make a difference. The book is usually a given and it will follow a standard as well. Adam Brown states that “[t]here is a discrepancy between what learners hear from their teacher and what they are presented with in pronunciation material (…)” (1) While teachers should make sure that their pronunciation is as acceptable as possible, it is of very little use trying to speak as the audio tape, especially if the audio tape uses a different accent. But I believe this should not constitute a threat, but rather an asset: exposure to more than one variety (whether native or non-native) is more than desirable, so if the teacher uses a different variety, as long as he/she knows how to exploit it, this will end up being enriching to students. The distinction between both varieties needs to be made explicit at some point, probably from the very beginning, noting there will be discrepancies. 3. What should I teach? It is no use teaching every single aspect of pronunciation. The teacher should decide, on the basis of what he/she knows about the students, whether they will profit from overtly concentrating on a certain aspect of pronunciation. I believe conscious attention on an aspect of pronunciation will necessarily bring about some desirable results. Yet, the question is whether the desired results justify the time devoted to the explicit teaching of this aspect of pronunciation. This is what Underhill refers to (2) as economical intervention. (1) Brown, A. (1992), p. 2 (2) Underhill, A. (1994) 25
Page 2 and 3: desde el Sur Publicacion del Centro
Page 5 and 6: PRESENTACIÓN Nuestro Centro, el Ce
Page 7 and 8: posteriores al proyecto original. V
Page 9 and 10: 1º LICEO DE PROGRESO, 2007 Observa
Page 11 and 12: Puntos Observa los cuatro primeros
Page 13 and 14: Esta solución, si bien permite res
Page 15 and 16: Bibliografia ANEP, Codicen, Guía d
Page 17 and 18: quiera se dan en posiciones equival
Page 19 and 20: perficial del verso, invertimos en
Page 21 and 22: Con ello, se produce también empar
Page 23 and 24: diantes: Winger (2005) sugiere que
Page 25: Enseñanza y Aprendizaje y Lengua y
Page 29 and 30: foster fluency; formulaic language
Page 31 and 32: Clarice Lispector Innovación y tra
Page 33 and 34: torias con todos los descensos al H
Page 35 and 36: Comprender era siempre un error -pr
Page 37 and 38: me en lo que viví: en la confirmac
Page 39 and 40: a ora verdad, ora moral, ora ley hu
Page 41 and 42: es una puerta abierta al descubrimi
Page 43 and 44: taña traerá la noche, sé que el
Page 45 and 46: en que estaba envuelta y revertirlo
Page 47 and 48: música), los tableros de despliegu
Page 49 and 50: Estas dos gráficas indican que el
Page 51 and 52: los hacia los modelos teóricos apr
Page 53 and 54: Cinta adhesiva Papel milimetrado Re
Page 55 and 56: apreciable, (ver gráfica). Esto se
Page 57 and 58: Jóvenes asignados pero informados.
Page 59 and 60: Aportes para la reflexión: PENSAND
Page 61 and 62: LOS CASOS EN LA PROPUESTA FORMATIVA
Page 63 and 64: nocimientos , pueda: pedir algo al
Page 65 and 66: y un modelo reflexivo de enseñar:
Page 67 and 68: ajando. 5- Realizar actividades de
Page 69 and 70: suntaba un gran desgaste emocional.
Page 71 and 72: liceo. Con Gustavo y con Ema lo hem
Page 73 and 74: atmósfera calurosa de fines de oct
Page 75 and 76: ¡¡¡UN MOMENTO!!! ¿PENSAMOS? Doc
Page 77 and 78:
“Proceso de interacción entre el
Page 79 and 80:
ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS En los ejerc
Page 81 and 82:
Club de Ciencias “PLANCK” Javie
show all

Revista desde el Sur

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?