I have been spending the last two months marking mocks and, as always, I tend to spot patterns in the work produced. A pattern, if we are all honest, appears again and again in their work. The analytical jumps in logic. Here’s an example.
The writer uses the adjective ‘angular’ to show how poor the Hartops are. This suggests how abusive the father is to the family which symbolises how men were seen to be the leaders of the house in the 1930s.
Like the current usage of the transporter in Star Trek, there are constant jumps in the flow. All the time. Jump from one thing to another. In fact, in Star Trek, now, they use the transporter to move from room to room. There’s no longer any corridor walking. You just beam to the place you need to go to. I do feel sorry for the background actors. There used to be a lot of corridor acting in the DS9 and ST:TNG days.
Anyway, if we look at the problem with students and their ability to analyse, the problems often stem from their jumps in logic. They join two vaguely linked ideas together. We have the analysis of the word - and then bang, we have the subtext and symbolism. That bridge between two ideas is weak, short and disjointed. But, why does this happen? Well, it happens because of the students understanding that something clever and symbolic must be mentioned. Instead of a gentle segue, we get a jump cut in the writing. Bang! Context point. Bang! Symbolism. Students know the things that show insight and that’s why they rush to them.
These jumps of logic are a real problem for us in English. I used to think that the structure you used in English was the problem (WHW or PEE) as it largely reduced the writing of analysis to three elements that, according to the acronym, need to follow each other in a set order. Now, I see that the real problem is a lack of logical sequencing of ideas. Often, you can see the student has the ideas hidden or vaguely touched upon, yet the formation of sentences has hindered this expression.
What we don’t do enough in English is look at the steps between two points? When we look at writing, we tend to look at improving sentences and paragraphs. We don’t look at the connections between two points. How do we segue from one thing to another? What are the steps between these two points?
[1]The writer uses the adjective ‘angular’ to show how poor the Hartops are.
Step 1 =
Step 2 =
Step 3 =
[2]This suggests how abusive the father is to the family which symbolises how men were seen to be the leaders of the house in the 1930s.
For me, I might say something like this:
Step 1 - discussion of the meaning of the word angular
Step 2 - discussion of how the word angular suggest an unfriendly person
Step 3 - discussion of how the word could have us pity or dislike the character
I’ve seen lots of advice to get an explanation better, but largely the structure is neglected. We give students words to help explain, sentences to build explanations and mnemonic to show what an explanation should have, but rarely do we look at the structured logic of an explanation. Take it through the logical steps. It’s the difference between a strong and weak response. It’s the logical progression. Weaker students throw everything at the examiner, including random historical facts and the kitchen sink. We support this, in a way, when we list the things a good answer needs to have in it. Rarely, do we have the bullet point: a logical progression.
I think we need to get students to experiment with the progression of ideas and help them find ways to do it naturally. Here’s an example for a literature response.
Dickens presents the poor as a complex group of people worthy of our support and care.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Dickens uses the character of Tiny Tim to highlight the need for care and support in Victorian society.
Literature needs exploration yet it doesn’t come naturally. That’s why I get students to explore ideas and work on discussing elements.
Step 1: discussion on how society ignore or simplified their plight
Step 2: discussion of Dickens own personal link to poverty
Step 3: discussion of what Dickens hopes to achieve by writing his novella
These don’t need to be individual sentences and can all be one, but it allows for the connection and movement of ideas. Why does the complexity of the poor need highlighting? Why is Dickens the person for the job? Why does Dickens think his story will be the tool for change? The logical progression is the focus and not the magical components of a supposedly good piece of writing.
The approach does benefit creative writing and allows you to work against throwing everything at the examiner.
Light smothered the grass and held the garden hostage.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
The father smiled with pride.
Or even transaction writing.
Nurses, doctors and the fire brigade save lives.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
All for one moment of fame.
If we truly want students to get better at explanation, then we need to look at how they develop explanations between two points. Two points in a paragraph. The problem, for most students, is not their knowledge or their ideas. It is their ability to connect, join and bridge ideas. They bolt ideas together like it is some form of mechano. Stick a bit of symbolism here. Bolt on this clever idea from the teacher. We need to slow things down and get them to progress through ideas logically.
I’d say that the classroom discussion hinders this logical thinking. Think of how a discussion tends to go: students tend to compete for the best sounding interpretations of the text. This emulates how they write. Rush to get to the clever sounding stuff. Efficiency is the English teacher’s enemy. Efficiency of thinking doesn’t help in analysis. It hinders. It simplifies. It reduces complex ideas and thinking to a bullet point or phrase.
Be more Vulcan! Take the logical path. .
Thanks for reading,
Xris
