English teaching and “The Real World”

Circa February 2011:

One of my biggest challenges (and goals) in teaching high school English has been helping my students learn how to write well—not only to write coherently in an organized manner (that is a huge challenge in and of itself!), but also to construct thoughtful arguments that actually help them discover depths in literary works and in themselves that they did not know existed before. This is quite a lofty and somewhat idealistic goal, and I wasn’t sure how successful I could be during my first year of teaching.

I asked some of my former teachers for suggestions, and many of them encouraged me to allow students to write about the “things they are interested in”—their own personal lives, their experiences, the music and/or issues they were concerned with. Such an approach seems in line with the claim that “students perform better in academic settings when they use concrete manipulatives and when they are able to draw on their practical, real-world knowledge” (McNeil Syllabus). You know, the universal “What I Did Over my Summer Break” essay at the beginning of school, or the “What’s My Favorite Sport/Movie/Food/ and Why,” etc. etc.

However, as an English teacher, I often ask myself what really is “real-world knowledge”? Most people don’t think that the sonnets of John Donne or the adventures of the mythic Beowulf really qualify—and that is, at face value, true: students don’t usually relate to such things immediately. (“Ms. Shea, why we gotta read this?” “Yeah why do we always read old stuff?” “It’s too hard for us to understand!” “Can’t we read something modern–like Nicholas Sparks?” “Can I write about a song instead?”)

Presumably, students would relate much better to modern poets or—better yet—modern music artists. But are modern music lyrics any more “real” than the poetry of Donne and Shakespeare? Are they less?

Image

Well, you know.

I have found that instituting a very simple classroom procedure called “In-Class Essay Fridays” has helped me more than any other teaching method or practice. Every Thursday I post the essay prompt for homework—they are responsible for bringing two possible thesis statements to class. I also encourage/require some of the struggling students to bring in an introduction paragraph to give them a head start. Every Friday, my students know they will be writing an in-class essay—an experience that used to cause them a lot of stress and frustration. But it has quickly become part of our weekly routine. I am able to give them a lot of individual help while they are busy writing.  Their writing has improved exponentially—but there is no real secret. The consistent practice has helped all of them.

The essay topics usually consist of a poem or passage to analyze. I have not really given them particularly “relevant” prompts—in the popular sense of the term—but strangely, John Donne, George Herbert, Andrew Marvell and Jane Austen have started to become part of their “real world.” One student said to me, “Ms. Shea, I think I want to write about Marvell instead of Herbert, because Herbert is such a good person! I don’t know if I can completely relate to him.” This student eventually decided to stay with Herbert nonetheless, and she wrote an illuminating essay.

As Mayer explains, “children seem to learn better when they are active and when a teacher helps guide their activity in productive directions” (16). But my in-class essay Fridays do not include many of the often celebrated activities like group work, or fun manipulatives, or even class discussion. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this weekly tradition really stretches, challenges, and engages my students: “the kind of activity that really promotes meaningful learning is cognitive activity (e.g. selecting, organizing, and integrating knowledge)” (Ibid. 17). Klhar and Nigram’s third hypothesis, that what is learned is more important than how it is taught (662), seems to be revealed here. I give my students careful individualized attention and advice on these Fridays, often in the form of direct instruction, and yet I have found it to be the most successful teaching practice I have engaged in thus far.

I’ve felt a lot of pressure as a new teacher to be “cool” and have music playing in my classroom, or use Youtube videos a lot, etc. And sometimes I do these things, and they work, and it’s fun.

But I am beginning to think that sometimes simpler is better, since a large part of my students’ writing success has to do with the ritual or weekly procedure—“In Class Essay Fridays” have become a normal part of these students’ lives. I am more concerned about helping my students feel safe within a context of challenging procedures that, through practice and consistency, will seem far less threatening.

Flannery O’Connor has a comment that seems particularly relevant and incisive here:

flannery

“English teachers come in Good, Bad, and Indifferent, but too frequently in high schools anyone who can speak English is allowed to teach it. Ours is the first age in history which has asked the child what he would tolerate learning. In other ages the attention of children was held by Homer and Virgil, among others, but, by the reverse evolutionary process, that is no longer possible; our children are too stupid now to enter the past imaginatively.”

A little harsh, Flannery–but as usual, you’re probably right. (And she was talking about education back in the 1950’s!)

I think she’d approve of “In-Class Essay Fridays.”

Hopefully, they inspire other procedures that will similarly become part of my students’ “practical, real-world knowledge.” Ultimately, I hope to make English class–including everything from Beowulf to Virgina Woolf–part of the “real world” for them.

Happy Birthday, Flannery O’Connor!

ImageToday – March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation (and, fittingly, The Incarnation) – is Flannery O’Connor’s birthday. I just love her.

Here are a few reasons why (in her own words, because no other words will do):

1. “A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way, and it takes every word in the story to say what the meaning is.” 

2. “There is something in us, as storytellers and as listeners to stories, that demands the redemptive act, that demands that what falls at least be offered the chance to be restored. The reader of today looks for this motion, and rightly so, but what he has forgotten is the cost of it. His sense of evil is diluted or lacking altogether, and so he has forgotten the price of restoration. When he reads a novel, he wants either his sense tormented or his spirits raised. He wants to be transported, instantly, either to mock damnation or a mock innocence.”

3. “Anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.”

4. “Art never responds to the wish to make it democratic; it is not for everybody; it is only for those who are willing to undergo the effort needed to understand it.”

5. “I come from a family where the only emotion respectable to show is irritation. In some this tendency produces hives, in others literature, in me both.”

6. “There is no excuse for anyone to write fiction for public consumption unless he has been called to do so by the presence of a gift. It is the nature of fiction not to be good for much unless it is good in itself.”

and most of all, because:

7. “I think there is no suffering greater than what is caused by the doubts of those who want to believe. I know what torment this is, but I can only see it, in myself anyway, as the process by which faith is deepened. A faith that just accepts is a child’s faith and all right for children, but eventually you have to grow religiously as every other way, though some never do. […] What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is the cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God.

Here are some audio recordings of her reading her short story “A Good Man is Hard to Find” and her essay “Some Aspects of the Grotesque in Southern Fiction.”

http://www.mhpbooks.com/audio-flannery-oconnor-reads-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find/

Here is a wonderful article written about her by one of my favorite Catholic writers and bloggers, Amy Welborn:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0058.html

As she would say at the end of her letters to Maryat Lee:

Cheers,

Tarfunk

An Introduction I wrote for my seniors, and my first post

peacock001Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen: The Art of Manners

The 20th century American Southern writer Flannery O’Connor says:

Here are two qualities that make fiction. One is the sense of mystery and the other is the sense of manners. You get the manners from the texture of existence that surrounds you. The great advantage of being a Southern writer is that we don’t have to go anywhere to look for manners; bad or good, we’ve got them in abundance. We in the South live in a society that is rich in contradiction, rich in irony, rich in contrast, and particularly rich in its speech. The type of mind that can understand good fiction is not necessarily the educated mind, but it is at all times the kind of mind that is willing to have its sense of mystery deepened by contact with reality, and its sense of reality deepened by contact with mystery (O’Connor, Mystery and Manners).

Flannery O’Connor’s description of the relationship between mystery (that which can never be fully understood by the human mind) and manners (our rituals, the acts of courtesy and custom that preserve the mysteries of life) is a wonderful way to begin to understand Jane Austen. Again, “mystery” here does not mean a murder mystery or an area of empirical/physical/scientific reality that we just haven’t figured out yet. “Mystery” for O’Connor (and probably Jane Austen) really means those areas of life and experience that are so deep that we will never (in this life or the next) get to the end of them—such as love, friendship, holiness, suffering, forgiveness, redemption, death, etc. “Manners” definitely includes things like saying “Please” and “thank you,” opening the door for people, dressing appropriately, etc. But “manners” for O’Connor and Austen also includes something more: respecting the privacy of others, understanding and negotiating social boundaries, the art of conversation, the art of listening, etc.

Although Flannery O’Connor wrote in the 20th century American South (Georgia, to be specific) and Jane Austen wrote in the 19th century English countryside, they both are really interested in manners and how manners/social boundaries/customs can either preserve or damage human mystery. For example, good manners for Austen, like waiting to be properly introduced to someone before you talk to them, help people build relationships and friendships based on a solid foundation. Bad manners, on the other hand, like telling your whole life story to someone the first time you meet them, can damage both people involved because one hasn’t established the right foundation yet for that kind of intimacy.

Forgive me for generalizing a little bit, but the Southern states, for some reason, actually seem to pay a lot more attention to manners than the Northern states do, because their priorities are somewhat different. In this way, living in the South might help you appreciate Jane Austen more, since she too would appreciate people saying things like “Yes ma’am” and “Yes sir” and offering people welcome and hospitality.

So:

When you are reading Jane Austen, pay VERY close attention to the manners of the various characters, how they treat one another, judge one another, respond to social situations, etc. Jane Austen is not going to directly describe a lot of emotions to you—but they are definitely there. They are brimming beneath the surface.

It’s like she respects the characters’ interior lives so much that she does not want to completely reveal all of their thoughts and feelings—since that would be a violation of manners and proper boundaries.

At the same time, Austen’s narrator is VERY critical of many of the characters. You may or may not always agree with her.

Don’t be fooled by Austen’s rather cool or lighthearted tone, or her stereotypes, or her ridiculous characters. There is some serious stuff going on underneath all the witty dialogue and brief descriptions.

Good luck!