11. Teachers at the Scuola Leonardo, Siena
For the four weeks at the Scuola Leonardo da Vinci at Siena I had two instructors: one for the first two weeks and another for the last two. Both instructors were approachable and helpful. I was told that this change of instructors was policy to ensure freshness and reflected the 2-week cycle of lessons. Certainly the instructors were as different as night and day. One was vibrant, organised, and fast-talking; the other seemed tired and not organised, and the content of his classes seemed to be plucked from thin air at the last moment. He was exhaustive to the point of boredom in his supply of examples, but he ran the in-class debates well.
The first instructor taught us the grammatical points for level 3 and usage. She also ran conversational excercises. Her classes were always interesting and fun, and she was always helpful. We had daily homework, which was corrected the next day, often communally. The school only asks for one hour of homework, which consists mainly of filling in the blanks in the textbook.
We also wrote essays, which the instructor corrected. In other words, the classes were interactive in that we were not just receiving data but had to put the information to use. She certainly stands high in my estimation. If I had any criticism it is that I would have liked the first 15 minutes of each day allotted to reviewing corrections as a method of consolidating what we had learnt. In fairness, the instructor was happy to answer any questions raised about the previous day’s work, but it was not a scheduled practice in the class.
I only wished we had had the same instructor for the second two weeks for these were less satisfying. The second instructor struck me as being someone who had taught the course once too often. The reason for this statement is that there was a distinct lack of organisation or purpose, and it appeared to me that he was often just "winging" it. The subject of the day appeared almost spontaneously, that is, randomly. Consequently, he would repeat a topic without even realising that he had already discussed it in a previous class. Then he proceeded to give us every example he could remember. The mental image I have is of someone cramming down our gullets a body of words and their usage. Mercifully, he also continued with our debates, which he ran well.
The first instructor taught us the grammatical points for level 3 and usage. She also ran conversational excercises. Her classes were always interesting and fun, and she was always helpful. We had daily homework, which was corrected the next day, often communally. The school only asks for one hour of homework, which consists mainly of filling in the blanks in the textbook.
We also wrote essays, which the instructor corrected. In other words, the classes were interactive in that we were not just receiving data but had to put the information to use. She certainly stands high in my estimation. If I had any criticism it is that I would have liked the first 15 minutes of each day allotted to reviewing corrections as a method of consolidating what we had learnt. In fairness, the instructor was happy to answer any questions raised about the previous day’s work, but it was not a scheduled practice in the class.
I only wished we had had the same instructor for the second two weeks for these were less satisfying. The second instructor struck me as being someone who had taught the course once too often. The reason for this statement is that there was a distinct lack of organisation or purpose, and it appeared to me that he was often just "winging" it. The subject of the day appeared almost spontaneously, that is, randomly. Consequently, he would repeat a topic without even realising that he had already discussed it in a previous class. Then he proceeded to give us every example he could remember. The mental image I have is of someone cramming down our gullets a body of words and their usage. Mercifully, he also continued with our debates, which he ran well.
posted by Toby1939 at 11:07 AM
<< Home