Basically, the article “11 Techniques for Better Classroom Discipline" is based on different techniques which have to do with the discipline in the classrooms and how we as teachers can improve it; presenting us several tips related to this goal.
Criticising the first technique (Focusing); it is not helpful to pretend to have all the attention in the classroom before beginning the lesson and not to start until this occurs. But, how can we achieve this goal if our main object is taking advantage of the few time we have for doing a class. For instance, it is known that in our schools: teachers are always fighting against time and seldom have they had the appropriate timetable for meeting all their class goals. What is more, the technique's description also claims that: “A soft spoken teacher often has a calmer, quieter classroom than one with a stronger voice”. But, using a stronger voice in order to call their attention and activate the class is preferred. A stronger voice and a loud- voice are not the same, because we do not need to shout for having student’s attention. As a result, we can have a stronger voice instead of being loud voiced teachers and have a quiet classroom, as well.
On the other hand, the last technique “Positive Discipline” summarize the main idea of this article which presents this tips for making us reflect about how can teachers and students understand discipline as something beneficial and not as something that just works for restricting others. For example, changing the way we establish the rules in the classroom, using other words but meaning the same and acknowledging good behaviour.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
Good use of emphatic language! I think you raise some good points of criticism in the second paragraph.
ResponderEliminarWatch out for your use of "into": you should say, "rules *in* the classroom" in the last paragraph--the same with "discipline *in* the classroom" in the first paragraph.
You walk into the classroom, run into challenges, in your job as a teacher.
Deep analysis! I would like to comment that I really like your style because you are very critic. You were able to give strong arguments and also a deep reflection about some topics from the article. In general your work is fine and interesting because you catch reader's attention, in a way that while he or she is reading, at the same time these one have time to reflect on your words. On the other hand , I would like to recommned you to try to use less words or be more concise in sentences. Good work!
ResponderEliminarGood summary! I liked how you organized your ideas about this text and how you explained them. According to emphatic language, you used in appropriate way in order to develop your own arguments.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, I would like to recommend you to be more concise in some points, not to be redundant.
This summary is well done because it presents an excellent organization. At the same time, it is easier to understand your points of views. However, some paragraphs are too long; for that reason, it is a bit difficult to follow the reading. On the other hand, I could find many complex structures which trasform your writing in a formal and interesting analysis.
ResponderEliminarBetter! Don't forget to tell us the author of the article--right now, it sounds like you are just doing a class assignment.
ResponderEliminarThis form does not work:
Criticising the first technique (Focusing);
I saw this in your 2nd post as well. Who is criticizing here? You can correct the grammar by just rephrasing: The first technique, focusing, is not so useful;