My presentation was a journey through my teaching of
techniques. I discussed what I do to get students to explore language
choices effectively. We have so many resources, yet we don’t have any clear
step by step instructions of how to approach things and this is problematic if
you are new to teaching English, or if you want to have a clear structure in
your teaching. There is no single way to teach, yet it would be nice to hear
how people approach things.
Our common approach to teaching techniques is often based on
two approaches. One: what students
notice in a text. Two: asking leading questions highlighting key things. There is also the teaching of a specific technique through writing but today I am mainly concerned with the analysis of techniques. Our questions usually sound like these:
• Why
did the writer use the word ‘++++++’?
• How
does the writer make the writing dramatic?
• How
are questions used effectively here?
• How
does the reader feel at the start and how does the writer create that feeling?
• What
effect does the use of emotive language have at the start of the text?
I have felt that the two approaches don’t always work well for me. They are two extremes. One structured and the other not. Occasionally, I might use both approaches, yet I have always felt underwhelmed with the results. In fact, I felt that my whole approach to analysis was limiting. Approach one was trying to build independence yet it was based on what I had taught students previously. Approach two was dependent on me leading and students explaining. Therefore, I needed to think how I could get students to explore without being too dependent on me. I needed some steps and approaches that would stagger the progress from explain to exploring. We seem to flip at the moment between the two.
Independence –
choices – exploring (A/B)
dependence – formula – explaining (C/D/E)
dependence – formula – explaining (C/D/E)
Approach one: creating sentences.
This worked really well as a starter as it allowed students
to construct simple sentences that could be expanded at a later stage. It made
students think and they produced some clever and insightful points. I usually get
them to write 6 sentences as a starter or a plenary. They then feedback their best ones.
To extend it further, I have asked students to link two
techniques together ( alliteration and 1st person perspective) to
show an understanding that techniques work in combination with each other.
Approach two: offering them alternatives.
This I have blogged about before, but again it is a
brilliant starter or plenary. It engages students quickly with its multiple
choice approach. We are always asking students to say why something is used,
which is like plucking something out of thin air, and rarely show them the possible alternatives. This approach gives students
a clear alternative to say why the writer picked one rather than the other. I have used it with poems,
plays and non-fiction texts. It gets to the heart of the choices and makes
students think. The question, ‘Why did the writer use a simile here?’ becomes
slightly more concrete for exploring when turned to, ‘Why did the writer use a
simile instead of question here?’. In their discussions they will relate ideas to the purpose and effect and structure without direct input from the teacher. They are simply exploring.
Approach three: offering them precise alternatives.
A variation on a theme, but nonetheless it works well. Some
teachers use draft versions of a text to explore choices, but this one worked
really well. It removes jargon and technical terminology that bog some explanations
down. Simply it focuses on the meanings of the words and how the word functions
in the text. I had a group discussing endlessly the difference between look and
glance. Harper Lee’s writing is quite simple, yet even with simple choices
there are layers of meaning.
Approach four: looking at the wider choices
Shakespeare is both easy and difficult to teach. This
approach I have used before, but I am refining it here. Getting students to
think wider as a writer is important. Here the students explore what were the
big choices made for the scene and explore why those specific choices were
made. Again, this is about making the implicit explicit. These are often the
biggest choices made by the playwright, but they are neglected by the dominance
of language features. This is part of a bigger document which I will share later.
Approach five: predicting the use of choice
This approach is my most ‘out-there’ one. The students are
told the context of a scene. In this case, it was Othello killing Desdemona. They have to explain why the writer would use
the word ‘it’ in this situation before reading a single line of text. Students
explore in detail why the choices were made. For me, this approach worked as
it removed a lot of the barriers to understanding here – the complex language and
numerous allusions to things students are not familiar with. Rather than decode
a text, they were thinking like a writer. Why would you use the word ‘honour’ in
this situation? Furthermore, it took out that annoying simplification of
Shakespeare that sometimes happens. Why study Shakespeare if you are going to
reduce it? The students were able to explore the choices even before reading the scene.
Then, in the reading of the scene an extra layer of analysis was added as they searched for the
techniques or noticed what the writer actually did.
These are just some ideas and my exploration of teaching
techniques is just an experiment with some positive results. I am going to take
it further and apply it now to writing. For example:
Write a letter to the producers of X-Factor persuading them
not to use the chairs again?
Opening:
rhetorical
question vs emotive language vs fact
I am going to get students to discuss which approach is best
when writing the letter. We will explore the choices at the same time that we
write. Write like a reader and read like a writer.
Thanks for reading,
Thank you for sharing. Very interesting information.
ReplyDelete