I've long since lost count of the number of people (teens and full-grown adults) who've told me that they don't "get" Shakespeare. That the language and themes are outdated. They think there is nothing they can gain from "suffering" through Shakespeare, and that it just doesn't affect them. But as a lover of The Bard, I can't wait to teach Shakespeare in my classes. And I think Piaget can help me.
I'm pretty sure that the language (early modern English) used by Shakespeare is more than enough to create disequilibrium. But I want to shoot for another kind of disequilibrium, too. Through use of essential questions, I want to get kids thinking, "How do Shakespeare's plays apply to me, and the society I live in?" and "What can I learn from reading Shakespearean plays?" These questions are very much at odds with many people's beliefs, which are probably that it does not apply, and there is nothing to learn from them. I'm hoping that the moment of, "Wait, there is a way this connects to me? There's something I can learn here?" (as the questions imply there is) will spark curiosity, and facilitate learning.
For teaching at the concrete operational level, I will use different visual representations of the play (or scenes from the play) we are reading. For instance, there are the BBC (word-for-word) versions. But there are also modern interpretations, such as 10 Things I Hate About You is an updated look at Taming of the Shrew, with modern language in a high school setting (It doesn't get more concrete than that!). Or one of the numerous movie versions of plays with more modern settings, but authentic language, which can help bridge the gap between what is being said, and what is going on, providing the students with a more familiar context. I might ask them to write as though they are a character from the play, how they would be feeling or thinking if it were them. We will also go through unfamiliar words and syntax, creating lists of anything that might be confusing, and working some of them out together using context clues, and looking up synonyms or definitions for the rest. These methods seem geared at assimilation: showing them how to fit this weird Shakespeare stuff into their current world view. However, by broadening their vocabulary to include early modern English, they can learn that Shakespeare really isn't so scary, and it can, in fact, be enjoyable. Their schema for "understandable and enjoyable" plays might change from "only those in contemporary English" to include those "from early modern English up to contemporary," which would be a kind of accommodation.
When we move up to the formal operational level, we will start dismantling and deconstructing the social issues at work within the plays. We can look at the way strong, independent women are treated in Taming of the Shrew, Tempest, Midsummer Night's Dream or even Macbeth. We can look at the parent child relationships. We can discuss the reasons for and effects of wars in the plays. We can discuss mental illness and suicide. The list of social issues is virtually endless. I might ask them, in a writing assignment, to transport the characters from the play into a new and unrelated situation. For instance: What political party would Macbeth be part of today and why (or where would he stand on certain "hot button" political issues today)? What TV show would Hamlet be addicted to and why? These questions would get at the essence of characters and require the students to think more abstractly about them. Primarily, I think these strategies are geared towards assimilation, helping the students connect the events and characters to their lives and interest. Ideally, by the end, students will be able to look back at those essential questions I mentioned earlier and answer them (perhaps without even realizing that they have had to change their schema to accommodate Shakespeare).
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
My Definition(s) of Intelligence
How do I know if someone is intelligent? My gut reaction goes to the good old I.Q. score--or aptitude. In practical reality, though, since I don't go around administering IQ tests to all of the people I interact with, I evaluate intelligence by other factors. The ability to draw reasonable, defensible conclusions from data, for example. Being rational. Being able to analyze, evaluate and synthesize information. Connecting ideas in unique and surprising ways.
Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences didn't actually sway my definition much, if at all. I think his "intelligences" are more of inclinations, or innate tendencies. I believe that "real" intelligence is about transferability. It's one thing to be gifted at one particular aspect of life, but that is not the same as being intelligent, in my opinion.
After reviewing Sternberg and Cattell's theories, I do think that my definition needs to shift a little, as well as gain some clarity. I like Cattell's differentiation between static or crystalized intelligence, and fluid intelligence. I think that amassing relatively static knowledge gives the appearance of intelligence, but really, it amounts to experience and learning. The fluid intelligence is what I could classify as "real" intelligence.
Sternberg's Triarchic theory adds a little depth and nuance to my definition as well. If I am arguing that transferability is the key component of intelligence, Sternberg makes me slow my roll and think about the different steps of transferring ones ability as well as the different ways aptitude/intelligence can cross into new areas. I concede that even within my definition of intelligence, there is room for strengths and weaknesses in terms of how intelligence is applied. All three areas he lists-- the creative, analytical, and practical-- are all parts of how I assess intelligence, and it makes sense that these different aspects would contribute to the concerted effort of intelligence in varying quantities.
I think with my current definition of intelligence, I run the risk of judging kids based on how well they apply skills to the different areas of the content. I need to remember that it's not always universal, not all-or-nothing. The best fiction writers may be crap at poetry, the best poets might suck at punctuation. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. But I also think my definition will impress upon students that just because they think they "suck at English" but are good at math, doesn't mean I buy that crap. They will know that ALL of them can learn and become good at English, or anything else for that matter. That it solely depends on their willingness to put forth the effort to establish those neural pathways. "Can't" is not a reaction. It is "will" or "won't" and the decision is up to each student.
Another area for consideration is Emotional Intelligence, which is (aparently) a better predictor of future success than IQ scores. The wonderful thing about English as a discipline, is that through literature, exploration of complex emotional issues can take place at a "safe" psycological distance. At such a remove, students can analyze situations without the natural defenses raising that might come up if asked to analyze their own behavior. After having safely examined an issue at a distance, students can then turn those concepts inward as a kind of self-assessment. "How would I have handled that?" or "How would that make me feel?" With a combination of reading, discussing and writing about the emotional issues in literature, I think students can not only identify emotions of others, and explore interpersonal relationships, but also identify their own emotions, finding strategies for managing those emotions (which can give students self-motivation, when they realize they can manage their reactions). Reading is awesome!
Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences didn't actually sway my definition much, if at all. I think his "intelligences" are more of inclinations, or innate tendencies. I believe that "real" intelligence is about transferability. It's one thing to be gifted at one particular aspect of life, but that is not the same as being intelligent, in my opinion.
After reviewing Sternberg and Cattell's theories, I do think that my definition needs to shift a little, as well as gain some clarity. I like Cattell's differentiation between static or crystalized intelligence, and fluid intelligence. I think that amassing relatively static knowledge gives the appearance of intelligence, but really, it amounts to experience and learning. The fluid intelligence is what I could classify as "real" intelligence.
Sternberg's Triarchic theory adds a little depth and nuance to my definition as well. If I am arguing that transferability is the key component of intelligence, Sternberg makes me slow my roll and think about the different steps of transferring ones ability as well as the different ways aptitude/intelligence can cross into new areas. I concede that even within my definition of intelligence, there is room for strengths and weaknesses in terms of how intelligence is applied. All three areas he lists-- the creative, analytical, and practical-- are all parts of how I assess intelligence, and it makes sense that these different aspects would contribute to the concerted effort of intelligence in varying quantities.
I think with my current definition of intelligence, I run the risk of judging kids based on how well they apply skills to the different areas of the content. I need to remember that it's not always universal, not all-or-nothing. The best fiction writers may be crap at poetry, the best poets might suck at punctuation. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. But I also think my definition will impress upon students that just because they think they "suck at English" but are good at math, doesn't mean I buy that crap. They will know that ALL of them can learn and become good at English, or anything else for that matter. That it solely depends on their willingness to put forth the effort to establish those neural pathways. "Can't" is not a reaction. It is "will" or "won't" and the decision is up to each student.
Another area for consideration is Emotional Intelligence, which is (aparently) a better predictor of future success than IQ scores. The wonderful thing about English as a discipline, is that through literature, exploration of complex emotional issues can take place at a "safe" psycological distance. At such a remove, students can analyze situations without the natural defenses raising that might come up if asked to analyze their own behavior. After having safely examined an issue at a distance, students can then turn those concepts inward as a kind of self-assessment. "How would I have handled that?" or "How would that make me feel?" With a combination of reading, discussing and writing about the emotional issues in literature, I think students can not only identify emotions of others, and explore interpersonal relationships, but also identify their own emotions, finding strategies for managing those emotions (which can give students self-motivation, when they realize they can manage their reactions). Reading is awesome!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Metacognition and Self-Regulation
How does adolescent brain development impact metacognition and self-regulation?
Because the frontal lobe of the brain, which is responsible for higher order thinking, is no where near fully developed in adolescence, the types of critical thinking we want from students isn't going to just occur on its own. It needs to be taught and carefully cultivated.
How will you help your students develop the three types to metacognitive knowledge (declarative, procedural, and self-regulatory) and the three metacognitive skills (planning, monitoring and evaluating)?
One of the first things I will do in each of my classes is to give the students a learning styles survey as well as a "get to know you" survey which will ask the student what they know about their learning styles, what study habits or routines they use and where they struggle and excel content-wise. We will discuss in class the strategies that tend to work well for each learning type, so the students can get to know their "declarative" knowledge and procedural knowledge. Using their answers, I will develop self assessments catered for each student's learning styles and current metacognitive level. We will discuss as a class before each lesson (in an oral KWLN kind of way) what we will be covering, what they already know, what their assumptions are about the topic, what they think the lesson is about, what they hope to get out of it. After each lesson, they can add what they learned, as well as how accurate their assumptions were about the topic, or what the lesson would be like.
For larger assignments/projects/essays, I will hand out planning guides (like a co-regulation plan) to help students insert their own due dates for each section of the assignment. This way, they feel like they are in control of their planning and due dates, but are still held accountable for meeting them. The final due date will be chosen by me, though, and they will have to make sure all of the pieces of the assignment (such as proposals, research, bibliography, etc) are all completed before the final due date. As each of their due dates come, I will have them check in with me and let me know how their work is coming along (likely just an email, but face-to-face if they prefer), and they will submit a copy of what they have done so far, and we can discuss if their due date plan seems to be working, and if not, how to adjust. The hope is by the end of the year, the check-ins with me will become unnecessary, and they will be used to setting their own "sub-level" due dates, monitoring their own progress, and evaluating their efficiency.
Because the frontal lobe of the brain, which is responsible for higher order thinking, is no where near fully developed in adolescence, the types of critical thinking we want from students isn't going to just occur on its own. It needs to be taught and carefully cultivated.
How will you help your students develop the three types to metacognitive knowledge (declarative, procedural, and self-regulatory) and the three metacognitive skills (planning, monitoring and evaluating)?
One of the first things I will do in each of my classes is to give the students a learning styles survey as well as a "get to know you" survey which will ask the student what they know about their learning styles, what study habits or routines they use and where they struggle and excel content-wise. We will discuss in class the strategies that tend to work well for each learning type, so the students can get to know their "declarative" knowledge and procedural knowledge. Using their answers, I will develop self assessments catered for each student's learning styles and current metacognitive level. We will discuss as a class before each lesson (in an oral KWLN kind of way) what we will be covering, what they already know, what their assumptions are about the topic, what they think the lesson is about, what they hope to get out of it. After each lesson, they can add what they learned, as well as how accurate their assumptions were about the topic, or what the lesson would be like.
For larger assignments/projects/essays, I will hand out planning guides (like a co-regulation plan) to help students insert their own due dates for each section of the assignment. This way, they feel like they are in control of their planning and due dates, but are still held accountable for meeting them. The final due date will be chosen by me, though, and they will have to make sure all of the pieces of the assignment (such as proposals, research, bibliography, etc) are all completed before the final due date. As each of their due dates come, I will have them check in with me and let me know how their work is coming along (likely just an email, but face-to-face if they prefer), and they will submit a copy of what they have done so far, and we can discuss if their due date plan seems to be working, and if not, how to adjust. The hope is by the end of the year, the check-ins with me will become unnecessary, and they will be used to setting their own "sub-level" due dates, monitoring their own progress, and evaluating their efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)