A beautiful spoken word poem about the effects of bullying. This was sent in by a student. Somehow, it seems to me that watching it alone just isn't enough.
I would love to introduce this to my freshmen and analyze not only the words, but the art and the music, and how they all work together to impact meaning.
A couple of weeks ago, a student from the school paper interviewed me for an op-ed article about offensive slang. Mr. T had sent the student my way, as he knows I am passionate about the subject. The student spoke to me for a couple minutes, scribbled a few things down when I mentioned my Connotations of Everyday Slang lesson, and moved on.
Today the story came out in the school paper, and it mentions how I have started discussions on the subject to help my students realize its severity. For a few minutes, I had the odd, outgrown urge to post the newspaper on my fridge.
As teachers, we know that someday we will make a difference, be it on micro-scale by motivating a student who had given up on himself, or by someday winding up on an education reform committee. That's what this profession is all about. But I think my bubbling fridge-magnet-worthy pride over a short mention in a school paper came from suddenly realizing that I have been making a difference. I always talked about how literature is really a study in empathy, and now I see that it isn't just talk for me anymore, it's what I've been doing; and someone, somewhere, may resonate someday with something I say, and think about it, and perhaps repeat the favor for the next listener that comes along.
I needed a way to introduce Fahrenheit 451 to my freshmen, and I wanted it to be in some sort of fun way that put them in the mindset to face the world Bradbury creates, since this is probably one of their first encounters with dystopian literature (apart from, of course, The Hunger Games). I came up with this, a mixture of a mind game I saw on Yu Yu Hakusho (inspiration comes from the strangest places!) and my own imagination, and tried it out this week. I am really happy with the results, and will probably use this again in the future (with some variations).
This game has very easy set-up, and it got the students riled up quickly, even though there were no stakes (no cookie points, no extra credit, just glory).
Censorship Game
Components:
Kinaesthetic game in teams
Reflection journal
Debrief
Objectives:
The student will be able to define "censorship"
The student will be able to experience the effects of censorship
The student will be able to apply his experience in the game to another time in his life when he has been censored
The student will be able to predict what the world of Fahrenheit 451 may look like, based on his experiences with censorship
Teacher writes the alphabet on the board (before class)
Teacher puts students into evenly-sized teams
The students select a team name based on an author they can all agree on (optional)
For every round, students send up one representative
Representatives have a certain amount of time to write down an answer on the board to a question from the teacher (30-60 seconds, depending on the question)
So long as the team has something written down, they get one point
Repeat with however many rounds desired (15 worked out to be the perfect number for me)
As rounds continue, teacher begins REMOVING letters of the alphabet; if a letter is restricted, students may not use it in their answers
Questions also become harder as game progresses
After the game, teacher gives students Journal questions (listed below); students have 15 minutes to journal about the questions
Leave 10-15 minutes at the end for a full-group debrief of the journal and activity/discussion of what students discovered in the activity/how it may apply to Fahrenheit 451
The Questions:
Note: I had 15 questions lined up because I did not know how long the game would take/how much time we'd have. I used all 15 questions, but some of them could easily be cut out, so long as the first and last questions are still the same (for effect).
What's your favorite ice cream flavor?
What's your favorite color?
What kind of pets do you have at home?
[Remove letters: A, K, Q, Z]
What's your favorite book?
Who's your favorite fictional character?
[Remove letters: G, P, U]
What's the BEST thing about English class?
What's the WORST thing about English class?
[Remove letters: B, J, L, Y]
How should a person live his or her life?
Why were Romeo and Juliet in love?
What is fate?
[Remove letters: C, O, X]
Do you believe in fate?
Why is Atticus Finch a good person?
[Remove letters: D, R, S]
Who's your favorite Disney character?
How do you feel right now?
[Remove ALL letters except for I, M, N, T]
What is your favorite ice cream flavor?
The Journal:
How did you feel at the beginning of the activity?
How did you feel near the end of the activity? Why?
Did you lie about your answers? Why?
What is "censorship"?
Describe a time in your life when YOU were censored.
Student Work:
Watching the students play this game was fascinating. While they played, I overheard comments such as,
Everyone's just copying to stay in the game!
Just write down "mint"! That's what she wants!
How can we say ANYthing like this?
They also turned the answers into a team effort where, for example, if Billy was up at the board, Billy's ENTIRE TEAM would tell him what HE thinks, just so he can succeed in the game. It resulted in a spontaneous example of "Groupthink" that gave the game more meaning than I anticipated.
After the game, my students wrote journals about their experiences, and then we had a discussion. Here are some things they said in either of those mediums:
"[At the beginning] I felt more liberated to write anything I want. I was more free to express what I really felt."
"Near the end of the activity, I was just trying to come up with ideas. It didn't matter if the answers up there were real or not"
"I felt [...] like I was being choked and strangled and the walls were closing in on me"
"I lied because that seemed to be what you wanted me to do and you're the teacher so I have to do what you tell me"
"It was like all of us/the authors on the board only had one opinion, which is impossible"
"I felt like the activity was pretty fun. [...] My favorite ice cream flavor really is mint"
"I was really pressured into writing something just to make it fit in the rules; it didn't matter whether I felt that way"
"I felt that I had no choice but to use the same answer as other groups"
"There was a lack of original ideas"
Some students were upset that answers in other languages were not accepted (to illustrate the rather nasty idea among some people that "if you're in America, you should speak English" and that other languages do not matter)
"Censorship is like being isolated or neglected"
"My mom doesn't let me read some books because she says books about death are too depressing [...] so sometimes she makes me read happy books"
One girl told a story about her aunt, a librarian whose job is to black out lines in books with sharpie if those lines are deemed inappropriate
"Each and every one of us is censored every day. Whether we know it or not"
Reflection:
What worked:
If the activity's point was to frustrate students, it was successful. The majority of my students mentioned being frustrated in some way or other when they were unable to use letters to answer as they wished.
Hard to say if it was the activity's success or just my amazing students, but we had a discussion that got to the bottom of almost all the problems with censorship after the game. A few students--some of whom have not read Fahrenheit before--connected the activity to the book already, so they will have the concept of censorship on their mind as we read.
Got full-class participation in the game, and pretty good participation during the discussion that followed (I think at least a third of the class).
I was able to stay out of the discussion most of the time, as my students spoke for themselves, or needed only an occasional "why/say more about that" from me to give a complete, meaningful answer.
The activity hit on many features of censorship--some of which even I hadn't considered--that could be starting points for discussion.
What could be improved:
Most of my students were able to make the connection between the game and censorship, but for those of them who didn't, or those that didn't pick up on the nuanced similarities, I may need to help clarify those by leading more in the discussion.
I had planned to do the discussion by simply asking students to answer the questions they had done in their journals, but I found that was not enough to get the depth I wanted. I had to invent more questions on the spot in order to help my students make connections, and some of those questions felt a little like I was leading my students by the nose. To improve this, I would have to improve the journal questions, write a separate set of discussion questions, or both.
Many of my students' definitions of "censorship" involve cursing, or not being able to confront others; they do not associate it with inability to express oneself, which is what the activity aimed at. Perhaps this activity would work as a better Into AFTER we define censorship together. It would also help my students understand the activity earlier on (as I know many of them felt clueless at the beginning and had no idea what the point was).
My school is exceptionally good about discouraging homophobic phrases like "That's so gay." However, I noticed in my freshmen and junior classes, at different points in the year, that several of my students used "That's so retarded" on a regular basis. With some of the students, it was enough to call them on it and ask them not to use that phrase; with others, I had to promise consequences if I hear the phrase again. I realized, though, that curbing the use of that phrase in my class is not enough; my students could easily go out and continue using it in the quad, taking the restriction as just some other crazy thing Miss B. doesn't allow. To make the rule meaningful, I wanted them to be able to see the reason why this language was inappropriate.
The result was this very simple lesson. I was able to use it effectively with both my freshmen and junior classes, and it is short/simple enough that I can keep it in my back pocket should another need for it arise.
The Connotations of Everyday Slang
Components:
Full group discussion (teacher-led)
Objectives:
The student will remember the definitions of "denotation" and "connotation"
The student will be able to identify the denotations and connotations of everyday slang
The student will be able to understand why some slang is offensive
The Lesson:
Teacher writes "denotation" (dictionary definition) and "connotation" (implied meaning, or the way a word is used) on the board (preferably in different colors, to help students separate denotation from connotation later on in the lesson)
Teacher asks the students to define the two terms; definitions are written up on the board, in the students' words
Teacher writes "That's so gay" and "That's so retarded" (or any other offensive slang) on the board
Teacher asks students to provide the denotation of "gay" and "retarded"
Teacher asks students to provide the connotation of "gay" and "retarded," as implied by these specific phrases
Followed by debrief, where teacher explains why the two phrases are inappropriate and offensive, due to pairing extremely negative connotations with the ways different people are born
Student Work:
These are phrases my students are quite familiar with, either because they hear them all the time, or they use the phrases themselves. When asked for the connotations of the two phrases, they were quick to recognize how those two phrases are used when talking about something one doesn't like, or something undesirable. They were also the ones to make the connection between identity (e.g. "gay") and the negative connotations imposed by using those phrases.
Reflection:
What worked:
The visual (different colors, denotation and connotation on the same board space) and verbal (denotation and connotation) breakdown of these phrases made it very clear why those phrases are offensive
Lesson provided rationale for one of the few rules in the classroom
That language has not shown up in my classroom since
What could be improved:
This activity is rather teacher-centric; though the students generate the denotations and connotations, I would want my students to be able to tell me what the rationale for not permitting that sort of language may be. If they can verbalize it themselves, it may help instill the rationale in them.
It is probably very easy for students to feel as if I'm targeting them with this lesson, especially for the specific students whose language triggers this lesson. If a student feels personally targeted by the teacher, he may block out the instruction, or feel as if his classmates are used to attack him. My point in this lesson is to teach my students to be more conscientious, thoughtful citizens, but I have yet to find a full-proof method to deliver this lesson so it is just that, a lesson, rather than a reprimand.
In chapter 22 of The Catcher in the Rye, we find out about the origins of the title of the novel, and Holden states explicitly what it means to him. There's a reference to Robert Burns' "Comin' Thro the Rye," which I shared briefly with the students, so they understand the allusion in the title, and the irony of Holden's association with it. But though they locked onto the meaning of the poem immediately, I still wanted them to see what the poem meant to Holden. Since the last visual activity worked so well, I tried that approach again.
My students were able to quickly interpret the "catcher in the rye" as Holden's way to protect kids' innocence, and save them from the phoniness of the adult world. And then the visual sparked some amazing unexpected interpretations that knocked me off my feet. They gave me interpretations like:
The rye is innocence/ignorance because the kids can't see in it, and so they can't see the corruption or the cliff around them.
The cliff is a turning point--there's no going back once you fall off, just like how you can't go back to being a kid once you become an adult.
Falling from the cliff is caused by gravity. It's like growing up. There's no way to stop it. It's nature.
(Big) Holden is trying to catch the kids from beyond the cliff. HE'S already an adult, and has already fallen, even though he doesn't want to admit it.
The kid that's running toward the cliff is Phoebe. She WANTS to be an adult so that she could be with Holden.
My students used the visual to go far beyond any interpretation I thought of, and they broke it apart figuratively in ways that most of them still can't conceive of in writing. It seems that to approach figurative meaning, visuals are much better than any graphic organizers or probing questions I can produce. The visual makes the abstract concepts accessible and tangible, and allows my students to run away with their wild, risky, brilliant interpretations that may have been stunted otherwise.
PACT (Performance Assessment for California Teachers) is a series of five tasks that revolve around planning, instructing, assessing, and reflecting on a series of lessons. In mid-April, I submit it to the university, along with two videos of my instruction, and two anonymous readers thus determine whether I am ready to be a teacher.
It has taken three months and 70 pages of single-spaced responses (96 pages total, including the prompts), but I am finally done with the first draft. Now I have about two weeks to revise and polish it, and I send it off!
Though I was terrified of PACT and its incredible time-consumption, I must say that the courses at San Jose State prepared me well for it. I have become quite adapt at rationalizing my methods, reflecting on what worked and what didn't, identifying patterns, and citing research to support all of it. Though it was still a grueling experience, I felt relatively prepared to tackle it. Now all that's left is to revise, submit, and keep my fingers crossed!
A teacher's experience in talking about what happened in Steubenville with her freshmen. The trouble is that we as teachers, as adults, tend to assume kids are not ready to know and talk about serious issues in the news, but these kids do know about it and think about it. And if we sell their thinking short, they'll continue thinking as they do without being introduced to new perspectives--like learning how not to blame the victim.
I have not seen Teddy Stallard since he was a student in my fifth grade class fifteen years ago. It was early in my career, and I had only been teaching for two years. From the first day he stepped into my classroom, I disliked Teddy. Teachers (although everyone knows differently) are not supposed to have favourites. But most especially are they not to show dislike for a child, any child.
(a short story one of the mentor teachers in the program shared with us during a workshop, leaving a roomful of adults in tears)
In the reading due Friday, my students came across the first mention of the title of the novel, The Catcher in the Rye. I knew we had a limited time to discuss it--shorter period and a packed schedule--and I wanted all of them to really understand what the titular poem means to the narrator, Holden. So before they came in, I sketched the scene on the board under the discussion prompt:
I asked them to discuss briefly in their groups what the scene hints at. To do so, I asked them to think about what is literally happening in the scene (a boy runs alongside a busy street singing), and what is figuratively happening (in Holden's eyes). This was the (abridged) end result:
Granted, since this was a small group discussion with debrief, I don't know that all my students reached these conclusions--it may well be only the 4-5 that volunteered. That said, I liked doing this lesson visually. The students who spoke had this scene pinned upon their first try (usually it takes us a while to get anywhere), and the visual helped my students separate the literal danger in this scene (zooming cars) from the figurative danger (growing up); they lit upon key words without my even having to prompt them. By the time the discussion was done and I asked the class what the kid represents to Holden, all of them said together "innocence," and that Holden wishes to protect it. The discussion, however short, was successful.
Taylor Mali's poem, "What Teachers Make." I watch this whenever I have a rough day, or can't seem to make my way through a stack of essays. I hear snippets from it in my head perhaps once a day. I've also found that even with less than a year of experience in a formal classroom, I've already encountered each of those situations (or some version of them).
A Google demo where you can collaborate with William Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Edgar Allan Poe, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Nietzche.
So far, Dickens has corrected my spelling of the word "died" to "decreased the surplus population," and Shakespeare wrote a flirty line to Dickinson, which she immediately overwrote.
Last week, my juniors and I looked at Ackley and Stradlater--two characters in the novel that offset the narrator and show something about his character by the way he describes them. The activity was good, but ended up being more of a character analysis of Ackley/Stradlater than Holden, the narrator, which is what it was intended for. My students still were able to make something of that prompt when I asked them to discuss/write about it, but had not reached the depth I hoped for. Clearly, I was asking the wrong questions.
Yesterday was a simple lesson: reading chapter 13 of The Catcher in the Rye together as a class. I told my students it is known as the infamous "prostitute chapter," where Holden meets up with a prostitute, but nothing really happens. That is all the background they had.
While reading, we reached a paragraph where Holden explains how when he's about to have sex but the woman tells him to stop, he stops. I heard a few muffled reactions right away, and I asked the class: does Holden respect women?
This sparked a conversation that was both feminist (I was proud of my students) and insightful about Holden. In three minutes, without even having seen the rest of the chapter, my students figured out that Holden is trying to seem masculine, that he's scared of women, that he's so lonely that he's willing to pay a prostitute just to talk to him. The other classes only reached those conclusions after reading on.
What I suspect did the trick is asking a question about a subject in which my student have some emotional or moral investment. Asking a question that drew on their prior knowledge helped them figure out a character written 60 years ago, based on a combination of textual evidence and what they made of the evidence.
You can't really interpret literature based on feeling or mere opinion; however, those seem to be good starting points, frames and schema through which students can get to the bottom of a character's psyche based on the text itself and their own readings of it--and that is really what literature is about.
Taylor Mali's performance of his poem "Totally like whatever, you know?" Showing this to my juniors on Monday, to preview Holden's way of speaking (his numerous "sort of"s) and remind them of the effect of passive voice on the reader.
Affective filter is essentially when stress is too high for a student to learn something, or to give a meaningful response.
The affective filter can be high when a student thinks he simply can't get something right, or when there's high pressure (from peers, from a test, etc.), or if making mistakes is scary. One way I try to combat the affective filter is by never shooting down answers; I usually let the student know he is going in the right direction, then give probing questions to push him further. I've also emphasized that there aren't really "right answers" in literature, so long as you can support your stance. For that reason, I've actually had relatively little trouble with participation. My students know that even if their answer is not 100% correct, I will help push them toward a complete, thoughtful answer. I have been able to lower their affective filters in this way.
That said, I have not yet perfected my practice.
Today, I played jeopardy with the freshmen as review for their unit test on Romeo and Juliet. As an attempt to increase participation, and to keep all students accountable, I thought it would be best to ask students to answer individually, in a predetermined order. This is what I tried in 1st period. Then in 4th period, following advice from Mr. T, I separated the students into small groups, allowed them to confer, and had them nominate a different person each round to give the answer.
My 1st period, which is a very bright group, struggled. They all eventually arrived at the correct translations (excepting a couple VERY hard questions), but it took each of them a very long time to respond, and they did so uncertainly. Their struggles with the questions did not reflect the excellent work they've done throughout the entire unit.
My 4th period, on the other hand, produced responses quicker, and more accurately. For most questions, students who were nominated to speak had to confer and double-check with their teammates, but when they responded, it was with confidence.
From comparing the two classes' experiences, it seems 1st period's affective filters were up: they were up to bat alone, they had to get the question right to get points for their team, everyone was looking at them. On the other hand, since 4th period's students were permitted to confer, their affective filters were much lower. Even when they DIDN'T need to confer they answered more easily, as they had their teammates backing them.
For the future, I think I will always do small groups for such activities. Though the students DO need to be able to stand on their own and find their own answers on the test, they would probably benefit more from a review activity if it did not cause them any extra stress. If I want students to be prepared to answer difficult questions in front of the entire class, it would require more scaffolding.
vaporwave
dailybridgerton
theartofmadeline
blakekathryn
romaincrisis
