reply
- Feature
- Like
exposing them to all literature and giving them the choice to interpret it themselves and resonate with whatever touches them.
reply
As an English teacher, I know I have a duty to teach kids the meaning and history behind the work. If I don't, I might just as well be a copy of the crappy teachers I had in school.
- Feature
- Like
As an English teacher, I know I have a duty to teach kids the meaning and history behind the work. If I don't, I might just as well be a copy of the crappy teachers I had in school.
We are currently studying the Salem witch trials and The Crucible in 11th grade English. It's been tied into the McCarthy era. We are having a 2-part test on it Monday. Part one is generic matching - who is who kinda thing. Part Two is all opinion and "why" kinda questions. The kids hate them cos they hafta think. Poor babies. My heart's just a'bleedin'.
It's not hard to teach higher order thinking...but if the kids aren't receptive, it takes a while. Train 'em up!
reply
Literature broadens your horizons. not only gives you a glimpse of the past..but of the future as well. tells you how other people..other cultures lived/ lives thier lives.
- Feature
- Like
Literature broadens your horizons. not only gives you a glimpse of the past..but of the future as well. tells you how other people..other cultures lived/ lives thier lives.
but then, that's what reading does anyway. Reading can take you places you have never been or may never go. it is the doorway to your imagination, communication and critical thinking skills.
I do though, have a problem with /how/ literature is taught in most schools. the method, I think, is pretty archaic. most "literature" classes cover the "canon"...which I have decided is a bunch of old white guys..and unfortunately miss a lot of really good and relevant material. and I think, probably, it's because the teachers don't "know" either. while a teaching degree requires a certain number of hours over all..for a certification in English Language arts requires on the average about 9 college hours of additional english courses..and those hours are not necessarily literary theory. how can one teach what something "means" when one doesn't have any idea ones self?
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-clwrdir-help.htm
I realize that things like "Beowulf" can be pretty boring (it certainly makes my eyes bleed, so I once "translated" it into the vernacular for fun) but, if you "dig deeper" it does have some relevancy. the advantage, I think that students have today..is computers...a vast web of information...not just for FB or MP3 or YouTube.
a part of developing critical thinking skills, IMHO,is learning to ask "why"? instead of waiting for "someone else" to /give/ you the answers.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I read many assigned works of fine literature in junior high & high school, and came away with zero understanding because it wasn't a part of the lesson (exams were all repetition), that stuns me now especially as I'm re-reading all of Dickens this year in celebration of the 200th anniversary of his birth and I find so much in his writing that remains relevant today. What a waste of time, to have students read important literature, if there's no discussion of meaning. Literature in university was far more interesting, although I never felt I had enough time to read everything I wanted to in order to become really knowledgeable about a subject (let alone a writer and their craft), I honestly wonder what they thought they were teaching in junior & high school classes. I truly believe that the ability to relate the lessons, especially if it's an older work, to current times is part of basic critical thinking and as a result a vital lesson for students.
reply
"...or showing students what the books and stories themselves teach?."
- Feature
- Like
"...or showing students what the books and stories themselves teach?."
Telling a child to read an important piece of literature and then having them write a report usual ends with just a summary of what they read and ZERO understanding. Same with fill in the blank and short answer questions that only as who what where and when, not why. If instead you ask them what is the importance of what they read, what it means or if it changes their perspectives at all we open their minds and start connecting wires they have been left destroyed by daily MW3 marathons. I fear that won't ever happen because the US education system is f***ed and parents would just complain after their kids were getting low grades because the class is too 'hard.' As if we should hold our students thinking skills to a lower standards.
Anywho, if you teach them how to disseminate information on their own they will be more willing to pick up more books because they will no longer feel like they can't grasp the information. I think that would go a long way.
I think I'm gonna go listen to that George Carlin bit about how the government and corporations what us to be stupid so capitalize works.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I think that if you can get the average student to expand their attention span enough to read even one chapter from an actual book with no pictures you have scored a major victory.
reply
I think what Flash said is ideal; I think in practice it is a valuable form of propaganda. If I remember correctly, required reading is determined by local school boards in America. In my high school, the literature was confined to American authors [save one year where we studied English lit]. We read Rand’s The Fountainhead, Hawthorne’s The Scarlett Letter…Sin, guilt, ethical egoism--these aren't universal themes. The values being transmitted were singularly American and very conservative.
- Feature
- Like
I think what Flash said is ideal; I think in practice it is a valuable form of propaganda. If I remember correctly, required reading is determined by local school boards in America. In my high school, the literature was confined to American authors [save one year where we studied English lit]. We read Rand’s The Fountainhead, Hawthorne’s The Scarlett Letter…Sin, guilt, ethical egoism--these aren't universal themes. The values being transmitted were singularly American and very conservative.
I also think schools could be a little more accommodating of students' ages and interests. After slugging my way through Beowulf as a ninth grader the only thing I felt was relief. Teaching literature *could* foster a love of reading. In practice, it often turns it into a great chore. There are so many great books that would appeal to a broad adolescent audience (Slaughterhouse Five, Ender's Game, etc) but instead we focus on these arduous relics.
reply
I think the biggest value in learning through literature is the fact that words can have significantly more meaning beyond the immediate surface.
- Feature
- Like
I think the biggest value in learning through literature is the fact that words can have significantly more meaning beyond the immediate surface.
I used to hate it when a teacher would ask, "What did the author mean by this particular metaphor?" I would think, what a sh*t writer if he can't just say what the hell he means!
In hindsight, I can now see that the roots can spread far beneath the surface and just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. I am using roots as a metaph...oh what the hell...figure it out yourself!
reply
Literature, along with associated philosophy and science writings constitutes the knowledge base of our species -
- Feature
- Like
Literature, along with associated philosophy and science writings constitutes the knowledge base of our species -
Literature is where our best morality is recorded -
Teach children to appreciate the best of literature and you arm them for life and the proper development of our species in a way that is 5000 times more effective than teaching them lies about virgin births or magic martyrdom.
reply
- Feature
- Like
