| title | author |
|---|---|
CLA201 Development |
Andrew Dunning |
- Conducted in six weeks as an intensive course (two three-hour classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays).
- Structure based on Ayers (1972), as frequently done in the past.
- Assignments based on versions of the course by John Traill and Catherine Rubincam.
- Vocabulary list is a modified version of the words provided in Ayers (with help from John MacCormick: see acknowledgements).
- The Oxford Dictionary of English and Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary were made available as recommended purchases at the bookstore.
- New list of assigned readings: all possibilities originally considered are found in the bibliography.
- Note: for finding new material in the future, 'terminology as topic' is an especially fruitful category when searching on PubMed and other article databases.
- Taught as a normal half course (three-hour classes on Thursdays).
- Introduced a separate course website rather than simply placing material on Blackboard.
- Note that many students do not appear to be aware that syllabi are available through the timetable website; be sure to make the link from Blackboard to the website prominent.
- Reworked the reading list: in particular, added a series of articles by Dirckx on basic aspects of grammar intended specifically for a scientific audience. Unfortunately, they're all on OvidSP, which doesn't work properly with the university proxy server, meaning that links do not work off-campus.
- It seems very few people purchased the Oxford Dictionary of English, so this was dropped from the bookstore: continued with Taber's as a recommended purchase.
- Continued to make corrections to the vocabulary list.
- Test II moved to later in the term (more appropriate for a longer course, given the larger gap between the end of classes and the final exam).
- Bibliography overhauled.
- Various improvements to the presentation of the vocabulary list.
- In the summer, I had been breaking it up through each lecture, but on polling the class, the preference was to have it grouped at the end. Both methods, however, have their advantages.
- I experimented for several weeks of Greek with working through only what I thought were the most confusing word roots. This was dropped for Latin, because words that were not covered in class had a markedly lower response rate on tests.
- The best method I have found thus far of working through the vocabulary is to put only the word root on the screen, and have the students guess at English (and often French) words using it, collectively working out what the meaning might be based on this (putting these on the screen once they are guessed or it seems unlikely that a conclusion will be reached otherwise). For simpler roots, they will usually guess the meaning directly. People tend to be most engaged when one can go through it quickly (about 40 minutes for all the week's word roots), keeping things high-energy, and get responses from as many different students as possible.
- Switch from two long tests to three or more smaller ones.
- Move Karenberg (2012–2013) to required readings (it is only optional because I discovered his work after the beginning of term), probably replacing Soutis (2006).
- Consider changing definitions of suffixes to a classification system (as used e.g. in Walker-Esbaugh, McCarthy, and Sparks 2004).
- Make an official version of the vocabulary list for vocabulary review software. (Students have not expressed a strong preference for anything: Anki and Memrise seem some of the best currently available that have both web and mobile versions.)
- Completely rewrite the vocabulary list. It would be best to somehow come up with a list of the statistically most common Greek and Latin stems in current scientific literature. Check how many definitions from the Oxford Dictionary of English can be used before fair use guidelines are exceeded.
- Reassess texts at bookstore: it seems that students have tended to use the Oxford English Dictionary most, so I am not sure that Taber's is necessary.
- Re-evaluate assignments to consider whether students' learning goals could be better met.