VII. Theory and Practice Collide Again
Completing the short story unit, which felt as though it bored some students to tears, I was determined to make the poetry unit more exciting for and accessible to my 9th grade students. I wanted the unit to expose students to the poetry I was required to by the curriculum but also to reinforce that poetry is a personal mode of expression and all are entitled to their own opinions. On the first day of the unit, I had each student begin by writing their own definition of poetry and qualities of a good poem; I then required each student to say their definition and one quality of a good poem aloud one after the other. While it was great to get all students to voice their own opinions, I was unsure of where to take the conversation and when I asked for open-ended responses to the activity, I received mostly blank stares (Artifact 7). I then introduced students to a poem by Billy Collins entitled “Introduction to Poetry” and a clip from the film The Dead Poet’s Society that each extol the individualistic beauty of poetry and self-expression free from constraints (Artifact 8). After both the poem and video clip, I asked students simply to react and to begin generating their own commentary. Again, I received blank stares.
For these two activities, I envisioned students jumping right into an impassioned discussion. I did not prepare discussion questions because I wanted to try to have a free-flowing organic conversation, which did not work at all. Like the literature circles with my 11th grade class, I again made a jump too quickly with my 9th grade classes from a highly structured to a completely open-ended discussion. Being exposed to theories about the benefits of open-ended discussions, I kept trying to make that leap without the proper training on my end as the facilitator as well as on students’ ends for knowing what to expect. Because the discussions never took off, students were then confused about what I was asking and disengaged because they were not sure how to participate.
Still in the poetry unit, I ran into a similar problem when teaching sonnets. My vision for this part of the unit was to provide students with a quick overview of the history of sonnets and their meter (iambic pentameter) and rhyme scheme. Then, I wanted students to interact on their own with Shakespearian sonnets, working in pairs to translate and make meaning out of his works. From there, I envisioned students creating their own original sonnets. My plans quickly changed when my brief overview of the sonnet was a complete disaster. Students had no idea what I was talking about. On my end, I made too many assumptions about students’ prior knowledge. Additionally, I presented the material in the form of a quick lecture rather than generating more hands-on involvement. My rationale was that I wanted to push students beyond basic understanding to be able to transact with a text on their own and then to generate their own versions and then share aloud their work with one another. However, I pushed too quickly through basic understanding.
While many of my journals and reflections throughout the semester reflected this theme, it was not until I took a step back and evaluated my work as a whole that I made this connection of the recurring pattern in my classroom of too quickly trying to rush past what I feel is basic and unnecessary to supposedly groundbreaking, student-centered, engaging activities and discussions. With the sonnets, I was able to recover the mini-unit once I slowed everything down and provided hands-on activities for students to practice iambic pentameter and rhyme scheme understanding (Artifact 9). Even though I felt that the worksheet I generated was boring, students were consulting and working with one another, all actively completing their work--a complete shift from when I attempted to quickly present these ideas. My theory about engagement in full-class discussions being most useful or productive when questions are open-ended found a hole in it because students were motivated, engaged, and having student-to-student interactions in a highly structured activity. After these activities, students created beautiful, unique sonnets that perhaps would not have been possible if they had not been first given the time to work out their basic understanding of what a sonnet was (Artifact 10).
My mini-unit on sonnets worked to inform me that perhaps my inquiry focus was too narrowly concentrated on engagement in discussions. Hence, I came to the idea that the best ways to promote engagement could possibly come from both hands-on activities and verbal participation; structured activities almost always still require students to interact and develop together, yet not always in the context of a dialogue. Often, my students seem more excited and interested when there is a combination of discussion and activities, whereas maintaining focus and motivation during full-class discussions is often difficult.
For these two activities, I envisioned students jumping right into an impassioned discussion. I did not prepare discussion questions because I wanted to try to have a free-flowing organic conversation, which did not work at all. Like the literature circles with my 11th grade class, I again made a jump too quickly with my 9th grade classes from a highly structured to a completely open-ended discussion. Being exposed to theories about the benefits of open-ended discussions, I kept trying to make that leap without the proper training on my end as the facilitator as well as on students’ ends for knowing what to expect. Because the discussions never took off, students were then confused about what I was asking and disengaged because they were not sure how to participate.
Still in the poetry unit, I ran into a similar problem when teaching sonnets. My vision for this part of the unit was to provide students with a quick overview of the history of sonnets and their meter (iambic pentameter) and rhyme scheme. Then, I wanted students to interact on their own with Shakespearian sonnets, working in pairs to translate and make meaning out of his works. From there, I envisioned students creating their own original sonnets. My plans quickly changed when my brief overview of the sonnet was a complete disaster. Students had no idea what I was talking about. On my end, I made too many assumptions about students’ prior knowledge. Additionally, I presented the material in the form of a quick lecture rather than generating more hands-on involvement. My rationale was that I wanted to push students beyond basic understanding to be able to transact with a text on their own and then to generate their own versions and then share aloud their work with one another. However, I pushed too quickly through basic understanding.
While many of my journals and reflections throughout the semester reflected this theme, it was not until I took a step back and evaluated my work as a whole that I made this connection of the recurring pattern in my classroom of too quickly trying to rush past what I feel is basic and unnecessary to supposedly groundbreaking, student-centered, engaging activities and discussions. With the sonnets, I was able to recover the mini-unit once I slowed everything down and provided hands-on activities for students to practice iambic pentameter and rhyme scheme understanding (Artifact 9). Even though I felt that the worksheet I generated was boring, students were consulting and working with one another, all actively completing their work--a complete shift from when I attempted to quickly present these ideas. My theory about engagement in full-class discussions being most useful or productive when questions are open-ended found a hole in it because students were motivated, engaged, and having student-to-student interactions in a highly structured activity. After these activities, students created beautiful, unique sonnets that perhaps would not have been possible if they had not been first given the time to work out their basic understanding of what a sonnet was (Artifact 10).
My mini-unit on sonnets worked to inform me that perhaps my inquiry focus was too narrowly concentrated on engagement in discussions. Hence, I came to the idea that the best ways to promote engagement could possibly come from both hands-on activities and verbal participation; structured activities almost always still require students to interact and develop together, yet not always in the context of a dialogue. Often, my students seem more excited and interested when there is a combination of discussion and activities, whereas maintaining focus and motivation during full-class discussions is often difficult.