The Pulitzer Prize Committee today awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Rhyme to Eminem and Rihanna for their duet, ‘Love The Way You Lie.’
The single chronicles the decline of a relationship in rhyming couplets which Columbia University Emeritus Professor of English Dr Thomas Waring describes as “utterly original and compelling.”
To read more, check out http://weeklycoitus.co.nz/?p=1759
Friday, April 29, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Introducing Lit into an ESL/IBDP class
Introducing Literature into an ESL/IBDP class
Students: Year 5 IBDP English B(HL) students, mainly from different parts of Asia
Duration: One term (8 weeks) but not every lesson was used on this
Objectives: 1.Reading for pleasure
2. Being able to identify the themes and issues inherent in the book
3. Critically reflect on the issues raised in the book, make own interpretations of the
scenes and conclusions
For starters, to take them through the journey of reading for pleasure, I gave them several deadlines so that they would be reading sections of the book together rather than giving them one final deadline to read the WHOLE book. With each section, we would then do a summary of what had happened and then discuss the characters and debate over the actions of each character. There was no 'test' or assignment linked to each of these deadlines but just the understanding that this reading is for pleasure.
Subsequently, when we finished the book, we then got down to dissecting the elements in the book - themes, issues, character analysis, summary of plot, moral of the story etc. - and the students produced a mindmap in groups of 4. They pretty much spent two periods doing this with added input from me but they had a good time analysing and debating their answers.
Then they were asked to do an interpretation of the text. As a mid-term assignment, students were allowed to either:
- present individually, a particular theme from the book their own understanding; or
- work in groups of 2-3 to present in any form an interpretation of the characters as the students recognised, a modified ending to the book or a role-play of a particular scene.
Result? Amazing stuff! I had no idea that they had understood the book so well. One of my favourite individual speeches came from a boy who questioned the meaning of love and used many examples from the book to argue what love really meant. Another group enacted a scene in a counsellor's office in which the characters were being counselled and advised on how to improve their relationships (this scene is not in the book!) and another group pretended that they were on the Oprah Winfrey show and interviewed the couple in the story and discussed their estranged relationship.
P.S. Sorry, I did not follow the whole 'lesson plan' structure here!
Students: Year 5 IBDP English B(HL) students, mainly from different parts of Asia
Duration: One term (8 weeks) but not every lesson was used on this
Objectives: 1.Reading for pleasure
2. Being able to identify the themes and issues inherent in the book
3. Critically reflect on the issues raised in the book, make own interpretations of the
scenes and conclusions
For starters, to take them through the journey of reading for pleasure, I gave them several deadlines so that they would be reading sections of the book together rather than giving them one final deadline to read the WHOLE book. With each section, we would then do a summary of what had happened and then discuss the characters and debate over the actions of each character. There was no 'test' or assignment linked to each of these deadlines but just the understanding that this reading is for pleasure.
Subsequently, when we finished the book, we then got down to dissecting the elements in the book - themes, issues, character analysis, summary of plot, moral of the story etc. - and the students produced a mindmap in groups of 4. They pretty much spent two periods doing this with added input from me but they had a good time analysing and debating their answers.
Then they were asked to do an interpretation of the text. As a mid-term assignment, students were allowed to either:
- present individually, a particular theme from the book their own understanding; or
- work in groups of 2-3 to present in any form an interpretation of the characters as the students recognised, a modified ending to the book or a role-play of a particular scene.
Result? Amazing stuff! I had no idea that they had understood the book so well. One of my favourite individual speeches came from a boy who questioned the meaning of love and used many examples from the book to argue what love really meant. Another group enacted a scene in a counsellor's office in which the characters were being counselled and advised on how to improve their relationships (this scene is not in the book!) and another group pretended that they were on the Oprah Winfrey show and interviewed the couple in the story and discussed their estranged relationship.
P.S. Sorry, I did not follow the whole 'lesson plan' structure here!
Should we be skeptical about the uses of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences?
Howard Gardner on multiple intelligences - the initial listing
Howard Gardner viewed intelligence as 'the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural setting' (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). He reviewed the literature using eight criteria or 'signs' of an intelligence:
- Potential isolation by brain damage.
- The existence of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals.
- An identifiable core operation or set of operations.
- A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state' performances.
- An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.
- Support from experimental psychological tasks.
- Support from psychometric findings.
- Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. (Howard Gardner 1983: 62-69)
Read the rest at http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Some Critiques of Howard Earl Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory:
http://www.igs.net/~cmorris/critiques.html
Howard Gardner viewed intelligence as 'the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural setting' (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). He reviewed the literature using eight criteria or 'signs' of an intelligence:
- Potential isolation by brain damage.
- The existence of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals.
- An identifiable core operation or set of operations.
- A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state' performances.
- An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.
- Support from experimental psychological tasks.
- Support from psychometric findings.
- Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. (Howard Gardner 1983: 62-69)
Read the rest at http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Some Critiques of Howard Earl Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory:
http://www.igs.net/~cmorris/critiques.html
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
From our Blackboard thread: "RE: A form of oppression? (a response to Dollimore's reading)"
Author: . TAN JEN VIN TEDDY
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:34:33 PM SGT
Subject: RE: A form of oppression? (a response to Dollimore's reading)
Hi Joel, thanks for helping clarify my position :) By oppression, I don't mean to say that they are forced to critique a text. It appears that they have to eventually, whether they like it or not. Rather, I meant to say that students should not be taught to critique-read "armed with an agenda" prior to finishing it. Please look at Samantha's response:
"Hi Teddy,
I agree with you on your point that we shouldn't read literary texts armed with an agenda. This taints our reading of a text even before we finish it! This seems immediately to detract from the very idea of literary enjoyment, and pokes holes in the subject.
You raise an excellent point about the canonization of texts. Where do
'lesser' writers stand in this whole scheme of things? Well fortunately,
such a strict adherence to this form of studying literature isn't practiced. At least, we know not to do it in our own classrooms."
My response:
Good points, insofar as i agree that literary criticism and appreciation entails personal enjoyment. But i want to complicate this nonetheless: What about students who don't find reading and analyzing literature "enjoyable"? More precisely, how would you define "enjoyment"? I can drink wine and simply "enjoy" it for its overall taste and intoxicating effects. Another person enjoys it more by describing the sensuous complexity of its taste, smell, touch, etc. A connoisseur appreciates and enjoys a piece of art differently from the "layperson." The latter, arguably, would find the art of analytic appreciation tedious and joyless.
And yet, we as teachers would insist that analyzing a poem can be enjoyable. How? Why?
Aren't there students who find the whole enterprise of literary enjoyment too "touchy feely"? After all, if history students get to talk about politics and history and "oppression" and other such weighty matters with "enjoyment," why can't literature students do the same joyfully?
Do some students find "poking holes" fun too ;-)
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:34:33 PM SGT
Subject: RE: A form of oppression? (a response to Dollimore's reading)
Hi Joel, thanks for helping clarify my position :) By oppression, I don't mean to say that they are forced to critique a text. It appears that they have to eventually, whether they like it or not. Rather, I meant to say that students should not be taught to critique-read "armed with an agenda" prior to finishing it. Please look at Samantha's response:
"Hi Teddy,
I agree with you on your point that we shouldn't read literary texts armed with an agenda. This taints our reading of a text even before we finish it! This seems immediately to detract from the very idea of literary enjoyment, and pokes holes in the subject.
You raise an excellent point about the canonization of texts. Where do
'lesser' writers stand in this whole scheme of things? Well fortunately,
such a strict adherence to this form of studying literature isn't practiced. At least, we know not to do it in our own classrooms."
My response:
Good points, insofar as i agree that literary criticism and appreciation entails personal enjoyment. But i want to complicate this nonetheless: What about students who don't find reading and analyzing literature "enjoyable"? More precisely, how would you define "enjoyment"? I can drink wine and simply "enjoy" it for its overall taste and intoxicating effects. Another person enjoys it more by describing the sensuous complexity of its taste, smell, touch, etc. A connoisseur appreciates and enjoys a piece of art differently from the "layperson." The latter, arguably, would find the art of analytic appreciation tedious and joyless.
And yet, we as teachers would insist that analyzing a poem can be enjoyable. How? Why?
Aren't there students who find the whole enterprise of literary enjoyment too "touchy feely"? After all, if history students get to talk about politics and history and "oppression" and other such weighty matters with "enjoyment," why can't literature students do the same joyfully?
Do some students find "poking holes" fun too ;-)
Friday, April 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)