8. Scuola Leonardo: Course
I have left my discussion of courses and teachers until now because I wanted to discuss peripheral concerns that help to shape our experience at the school or university. However, since our main objective is to learn Italian, the quality of the courses and teachers must become our prime concern. Even at Perugia one could almost forgive the absenteeism, lateness, non-functioning equipment, and invisibility of a controlling hand if the course and the teachers were outstanding. And the same holds true for the Scuola Leonardo: no matter how wonderful its ambience and extracurriculum activities, the crunch must be the quality of the courses and the teachers. In this blog I will focus on the course at the Scuola.
The Scuola offers 6 levels of classes from beginner to diploma and one-to-one instruction at an extra cost. Each level is divided into 2 two-week sessions. Each level also has its own book prepared and issued by the Scuola. Grammatical topics are spread over the six levels, which means one learns something but not everything on a topic. For example, in level 3 [Intermediate] we learnt some of the rules for the subjunctive and only the present and past subjunctive.
I must admit that I benefited from this limited approach. If nothing else, they knocked into me when to use the present perfect [passato prossimo] and when the imperfect [imperfetto]. Previously I had confused these tenses with their English usage, but by the time I finished level 3 I certainly knew when to use them and the other grammatical topics that were taught. In short, Level 3 had a limited target, which it achieved, and I suspect the same holds true for each level.
At the end of two weeks we had a change of instructors, heralding another 2-week session. This approach allows for the entry of new students. In fact, the school is so programmed that after every two weeks lessons stop on the third Monday while the school vets the new students and places them. Teaching came to a stop while the testing went on and we waited for the entry of new students. In essence, that Monday was lost.
The time was lost because it could have been better used. For example, it could have been used for organised review or for whatever the instructor plans. The key words are organised and planned. The instructor showed us several short films made in Tuscany. There is nothing wrong with showing us films but it was obvious to me that they were just fillers to mark time. The fault probably lay with the new instructor, who lacked the vibrancy of his predecessor.
The main problem with the influx of new students at the end of two weeks is that on several occasions the class came to a grinding halt while he explained to them something that we had already covered. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with repetition and, in fact, reiteration of grammatical points is doubtless the best way to assimilate them. However, these were not planned revisions, and the class would have to stop its discussion in mid stream while an earlier grammatical point was explained. Not only does this become tedious but it is also confusing because our focus shifts from a half-discussed topic to another. In fact, we spent four out of the five days of the third week backtracking.
The second two-week session focused on word usage and I think it fair to say that most of us were bored. He was certainly exhaustive in giving us every possible example of the topic being discussed. This was too pedestrian, for he might just as well have given out a handout.
Besides teaching us grammar and language, the instructors also made us speak in each lesson. We either spoke to the teacher or to another student. As the class was only about 10 students we had more opportunity to speak than at the University of Perugia where the class had 15 students. We could have one to one “debates”, which was highly beneficial and certainly amusing. We also had one afternoon where a professional actor and teacher gave us an afternoon of pronunciation in which we had to act out the sounds. It was hilarious and highly educative, and it remains a high point for me. We also had optional lectures both in and out of class, where the guide was one of the instructors, and this gave us an opportunity to listen to someone speak and converse with at a pace that we could understand. It is certainly true that at the Scuola teaching was not just one channel -- in the classroom-- but multi channel, often without us realising that we were being taught.
What the Scuola offered they did well: a narrow focus on a set of grammatical rules, which were hammered in durring the two-week session. I just wish that they would offer a seventh level or class which would be a catchall for students like myself who have a fair to good knowledge of the grammar but cannot speak the language. The rules may not be at our fingertips, but we have studied them. I see such a class as repetitive but not repeatable. Students could take this course as many times as they want, but the topics would not be necessarily repeated because they would emerge from the conversation. The emphasis would be on conversation, but as grammatical errors are made, they get discussed, or serve as prompts for grammatical topics, which are discussed fully. Such a class would be more intensive than the six levels, and for those who are not prepared to put in the extra work, they can slide into one of the six levels.
The Scuola offers 6 levels of classes from beginner to diploma and one-to-one instruction at an extra cost. Each level is divided into 2 two-week sessions. Each level also has its own book prepared and issued by the Scuola. Grammatical topics are spread over the six levels, which means one learns something but not everything on a topic. For example, in level 3 [Intermediate] we learnt some of the rules for the subjunctive and only the present and past subjunctive.
I must admit that I benefited from this limited approach. If nothing else, they knocked into me when to use the present perfect [passato prossimo] and when the imperfect [imperfetto]. Previously I had confused these tenses with their English usage, but by the time I finished level 3 I certainly knew when to use them and the other grammatical topics that were taught. In short, Level 3 had a limited target, which it achieved, and I suspect the same holds true for each level.
At the end of two weeks we had a change of instructors, heralding another 2-week session. This approach allows for the entry of new students. In fact, the school is so programmed that after every two weeks lessons stop on the third Monday while the school vets the new students and places them. Teaching came to a stop while the testing went on and we waited for the entry of new students. In essence, that Monday was lost.
The time was lost because it could have been better used. For example, it could have been used for organised review or for whatever the instructor plans. The key words are organised and planned. The instructor showed us several short films made in Tuscany. There is nothing wrong with showing us films but it was obvious to me that they were just fillers to mark time. The fault probably lay with the new instructor, who lacked the vibrancy of his predecessor.
The main problem with the influx of new students at the end of two weeks is that on several occasions the class came to a grinding halt while he explained to them something that we had already covered. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with repetition and, in fact, reiteration of grammatical points is doubtless the best way to assimilate them. However, these were not planned revisions, and the class would have to stop its discussion in mid stream while an earlier grammatical point was explained. Not only does this become tedious but it is also confusing because our focus shifts from a half-discussed topic to another. In fact, we spent four out of the five days of the third week backtracking.
The second two-week session focused on word usage and I think it fair to say that most of us were bored. He was certainly exhaustive in giving us every possible example of the topic being discussed. This was too pedestrian, for he might just as well have given out a handout.
Besides teaching us grammar and language, the instructors also made us speak in each lesson. We either spoke to the teacher or to another student. As the class was only about 10 students we had more opportunity to speak than at the University of Perugia where the class had 15 students. We could have one to one “debates”, which was highly beneficial and certainly amusing. We also had one afternoon where a professional actor and teacher gave us an afternoon of pronunciation in which we had to act out the sounds. It was hilarious and highly educative, and it remains a high point for me. We also had optional lectures both in and out of class, where the guide was one of the instructors, and this gave us an opportunity to listen to someone speak and converse with at a pace that we could understand. It is certainly true that at the Scuola teaching was not just one channel -- in the classroom-- but multi channel, often without us realising that we were being taught.
What the Scuola offered they did well: a narrow focus on a set of grammatical rules, which were hammered in durring the two-week session. I just wish that they would offer a seventh level or class which would be a catchall for students like myself who have a fair to good knowledge of the grammar but cannot speak the language. The rules may not be at our fingertips, but we have studied them. I see such a class as repetitive but not repeatable. Students could take this course as many times as they want, but the topics would not be necessarily repeated because they would emerge from the conversation. The emphasis would be on conversation, but as grammatical errors are made, they get discussed, or serve as prompts for grammatical topics, which are discussed fully. Such a class would be more intensive than the six levels, and for those who are not prepared to put in the extra work, they can slide into one of the six levels.
posted by Toby1939 at 3:02 PM
<< Home