1) I appreciated how many of you tried to marry language and literature learning outcomes - for example, by building vocabulary, correcting grammar errors, providing opportunities for writing WHILE encouraging personal responses and reflections, discussing social issues, analyzing metaphors and symbols, and appreciating the effects of rhyme and rhythm. The challenge, of course, is to do it consistently without making literature "play second fiddle" to language teaching. To study literature, after all, is to invite students to exercise critical thinking and to engage sensitively and sympathetically with issues and themes of human concern.
2) Remember that literature not only engages Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive skills, but also his taxonomy of affective processes. And to invite affective engagement in literary texts, we need to give students both time (especially wait time) and a safe space to reflect, feel, and share their responses. The sharing part may be more difficult for students who seem quiet, shy, or less confident of their speaking abilities. As enablers, we teachers need to think of ways to give these students equal and equitable opportunities to speak and share their thoughts, whether verbally or in writing. Sometimes, without fully realizing it, we give more attention and affirmation to the students who are more vocal and assertive in class (especially the boys). Sometimes, because of lack of time, we tend to round up a discussion prematurely without allowing everyone a chance to speak.
3) Research has shown that discussion and debate are the most effective pedagogical strategies for developing critical thinking. However, studies by NIE researchers have shown that teacher-dominated talk and didactic instruction are the norm in Singapore classrooms. “Instruction tends to be focused on mechanical or procedural skills rather than on literacy or cognitive dimensions of the tasks” (Kwek, Albight, & Kramer-Dahl, 2007). In their observations, students were often expected to produce answers or knowledge that confirms what the teacher knew or expected them to know. Many teacher-controlled lessons provide insufficient opportunities for students to engage in SUSTAINED and SUBSTANTIVE debate, deliberation, and discussion. Seldom in these classrooms were students empowered to lead and facilitate class discussions by themselves.
We can reflect on how far these observations also reflect the discussion culture in our own classrooms. When conducting whole-class discussions, how far do we allow our students to discuss and debate with one another? Are we too often tempted to step in and provide the "right" answers? Are we uncomfortable with departing from our lesson script and allowing students to steer the conversation in alternative paths? Remember, after all, that in Literature, "right" and "wrong" interpretations depend on how well they are justified. And often, extended talk is necessary to allow for that process of justification. For more ideas on this, see this website on Socratic Questioning.
4) This brings me to a point worth testing: Students ARE able to think at a critical level, even though they may not have the linguistic sophistication to articulate their thoughts accurately and convincingly. Sometimes, we underestimate their willingness and ability to respond critically to literary texts based on our assessment of their linguistic competence. How can we empower ESL learners (especially in "neighborhood schools") to participate in meaningful discussions despite their lack of English language skills?
5) Informal, “idle” talk among pupils isn’t antithetical to language learning. A "rowdy" classroom (within reasonable boundaries) can mean that students are actively engaged in the use of the target language. Sometimes, allowing students to converse in their first language can be a legitimate teaching strategy. Bilingual approaches to language-learning suggest that students need to build an "interlanguage" as a scaffold for mastering the target language. As teachers, we need to encourage students to use their native language to understand the English language. And by emphasizing "accuracy" over "fluency," we may be unfairly silencing students who sincerely want to speak but just need the extra personal attention to build their linguistic skills on their native language resources.
6) Don't shortchange your students with low expectations. The most stimulating experiences capitalize on learners' potential to succeed in the "zone" between what they can and what they can't. According to Lev Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development "is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers." It includes all that a learner cannot yet understand or perform on her/his own yet, but is capable of acquiring/doing/ mastering with guidance from a more capable peer or mentor (see Table 1 for a more complex representation of this process). That more capable person is usually the teacher working with individual students privately in and outside the classroom. "Scaffolding" in this case involves more than just advance organizers and worksheets with guided instructions on well-drawn "fill-in-the-blanks" tables. Scaffolding becomes a complex relational process in which learner and teacher dialogue, negotiate, and challenge each other to be better than they are.
Table 1. Four-stage model of the Zone of Proximal Development by R.G. Tharp and R. Gallimore (1988). Rousing minds to life (p.35).
On a less individualized level, consider also the ways in which a diligent, caring teacher strives to differentiate lesson processes and assessments to cater to different students' different abilities, interests, and skills. Educators call this differentiated instruction (see this YouTube video for a quick intro).
7) Some classes I observed seemed less "disciplined" and "orderly" than others - which isn't a bad thing. Some researchers suggest that "noisy" classes are often those whose students enjoy a more personal relationship with the teacher. Of course, there are also noisy classrooms where the teacher doesn't care about students or teaching, but these clearly don't apply to any of you ;-) Teachers have different ways of interacting with students and establishing effective rapport. And a lot of meaningful teacher-student interaction happens outside formal lesson time.
Ultimately, of course, how tolerant you are of students being free to be themselves is entirely a matter of teachers' individual beliefs and personality. As Parker Palmer famously explained, we teach who we are. We just need to understand, too, that students respond differently to different teachers' teaching styles. But teachers don't understand - because they don't see - what happens between their students and their colleagues. What I recommend (a recommendation supported by many researchers) is for teachers to share their teaching experiences AND beliefs and teaching styles with each other, especially if they're teaching the same students. This means that schools should strive to foster a collaborative, collegial culture in order to enhance the professionalism of their teachers. Easier said than done, of course, given the stress of busy schedules that include more than just classroom teaching (sigh)...
Finally, I thought we should all clarify some of the concepts and theories that I thought were superficially referenced (or vaguely alluded to) in the lesson/unit plans. Refresh your memories at the following websites:
Have a good break and good luck for the new semester!
