Reflection on Literacy Lesson
In English, Linguistic analysis takes a more analytical approach to dissecting and understanding a text, than a literary analysis. Part of my goal was to illustrate the science behind examining a text using linguistic devices. In my content area of English, when students are instructed to analyze a text; most times the teacher is looking for specific literary devices, such as imagery, metaphor, personification etc. Rarely, if ever, will high school students and most college students be required to use linguistic tools to breakdown or illustrate their understanding of a text. Linguistic devices like cohesion, deviation and structure; however, are just as important when studying how and why a text is written in a specific way. Linguistic analysis is more concerned with how words mean rather than what they mean. For example, what words are used in a phrase to infer meaning; lexical features (i.e. how many adjectives are used compared to nouns) and words semantics (what words represent and their relationships to other words).
In my lesson, I wanted the students to understand cohesion, how it works and is used in a text to create uniformity, especially since cohesion directly deals with word semantics. I chose E. E. Cummings, poem “Listen,” because he breaks away from conventional methods of writing poetry. For example; he paid little attention to conventional structure, but managed to create fluidity in his poetry by using cohesive devices like repetition and hyponyms. The Do Now, which consisted of perusing the text and writing down thoughts, was used to get the students familiar with the text and also to draw them into the lesson. My hope was that they would get a general feel of the poem and the meaning (in their opinions), as the poem is fascinating and has multiple themes. I had students work independently at first because I wanted their initial thoughts to be organic without any outside influence from their peers. I figured that once they broke into groups they would have more ideas to work with, especially when rewriting the last eight lines of the poem. I moved them into groups to work collectively because pulling out examples of hyponyms would require brain power, and they would be able to exchange ideas and opinions about the text. I knew the repetition portion of the assignment would be easy, as it was self-explanatory, but the hyponyms would be a challenge. I wanted to challenge them because I feel like students should always be challenged. I did not want to teach a lesson and have the entire experience be a breeze. That being said I did not want to make things too difficult either where they could not grasp the concept.
After the second part of the activity; I asked the students to share their findings, but while they were working I made sure to monitor what it was they were discovering, so that I could gauge their level of understanding and provide support where needed. I found a few students struggling with the concept of hyponyms. They were confusing them with a similar nym called meronym. At this point, I felt it was important to give some background on meronyms to clear the confusion. When I transitioned into the last part of the lesson, where students had to rewrite the last eight lines of the poem using their own words; I gave the groups the option to split the task amongst them so that each student could rewrite two lines apiece. This way most of the work would not fall on one student.
After the last activity each group was again asked to volunteer their findings. For the most part the students got the concept, but failed to execute successfully, as they repeated the words that were already used in the text. Nevertheless, each group used some originality to construct their poems. Differentiation came in with the use of individual work, group work, and integration of technology, a mini lesson and a print out of the poem. The individual work was so that the students could form independent ideas about the poem. The group work was assigned because no two students learn in an identical way. Therefore, I wanted to provide some added support to those students who needed it, as well as providing an opportunity for peer teaching and cooperative learning. Both individual work and group work was forms of assessment. My use of visual aid was integrated to act as a supplemental source of information. The language in the visual aid was clear and concise and the graphs connected directly with what I was teaching I believe the forms of literacies used in my lesson goes hand in hand with the types of assessments I used. For example, I assigned reading, and two writing task, where the students had to use critical thinking skills. I varied the level of complexity in the lesson, the reading and jotting down notes and pulling out repetition was easier than identifying hyponyms. The pretest (identifying forms of repetition and hyponyms) was used to determine what they understood based solely on the mini lecture and instruction provided at the start of the lesson, then the practice (rewriting the last eight lines) was given to assess their understanding, but more importantly to provide them with a chance to rehearse the new skills they were taught. Other forms used were listening and speaking, I listened to them discuss (while in groups) ideas they had about the text and allowed them to explain (present orally) their findings at the end of each activity, again to assess their understanding of the lesson. I believe the group work helped them the most in achieving the aim because they were able to work together to gain a clear understanding of the text and the instruction they were provided. I was more interested in the learning process because it included the “read, think, discuss, and grow’ concept and I think they mastered this part well. This was extremely important to me as this involves creativity, students have to exercise their minds and they express original thoughts rather than having to regurgitate what the teacher teaches. Interestingly enough some of the students commented on my lesson the following week. One student, Greta, said that while in another class, a classmate mentioned hyponyms (in relation to the text they were reading) and she (Greta) was able to understand what was being discussed. So, even if she did not master identifying hyponymy in class, it is something she can grow to master, which is why I followed up with an email of the power point and some more detail concerning the lesson.
Objective Teaching Description
At the start of the lesson I gave the students some information on what the lesson would cover, I assigned a Do Now activity, where they had to read the text and jot down any ideas they had about the poem’s theme and overall meaning. Afterwards, I explained the type of tools used in literary analysis to compare and contrast it to what we would cover, which was devices used in linguistic analysis. I went on to explain that we would be looking at cohesion, specifically two forms, repetition and hyponyms. I showed examples of both using a visual aid. I also explained their functions in more detail. I made sure to ask students if I was clear before moving on. After getting confirmation that I was clear, I transitioned into the next phase of the lesson. The next phase of the lesson required that the students break into groups. In groups they rehearse what they have learned so far about repetition and hyponyms. While students are working I made my way from one group to the next to answer questions, assess their progress, and to listen to what they are discussing to gage their understanding of the task, but also to monitor them so they did not go off task. When groups complete the assignment, I ask them to share the examples they found within the text. After students were done sharing, I explained the difference between hyponyms and meronyms as some of the students have confused the two. Once I am done explaining, I ask if there are any questions, in case I am not clear and they still have doubts. When I feel like it is safe to move on, we transition as a class to the final phase of the lesson where they now have to put into practice what they have learned using some of what they wrote down in the Do Now, to help construct their rewrites. Students begin working as a group to put together the last eight lines, there is chatter; laughter and writing as the students talk about what they believe are instances of repetition and hyponyms. I observe, listen, and facilitate where necessary. Once the students have completed their rewrites, they are asked to volunteer what they rewrote and explain how they used repetition and hyponyms to recreate the last lines. A volunteer from each group reads their rewrite and we joke and laugh at some of the responses. When the students are done with the last task of sharing their rewrites, I close out the lesson with a summation of what was done, give another brief explanation of hyponyms and again explain why they differ from meronyms. I ask once more if there are any more questions; one student a question about the lesson and whether it will be on a test, I answer no, and then close. Some of the organizational strategies employed during my lesson included time and classroom arrangement; I made copies of needed materials before class, and asked as part of their homework that they bring in pocket dictionaries. I gave a specific amount of time for the first activity, but was more generous with the group activities as they called for more than just reading and jotting down thoughts. So, there were five minutes for the first task and about eight minutes for the last two activities. I broke the students into group to consolidate time; the exercise might have taken longer if they had to work separately. Breaking the students into groups also allowed me to address concerns with whole groups as oppose to spending too much time with just one individual. Before each transitional phase of the lesson, I gave instruction of what we would be doing next.
I also used a visual aid as back-up. During each activity I made sure to visit each group to assess where they were with the assignment, answer questions, listen and watch for what they are discussing. I also watched from a distance so that I was not hovering over them, but I was mindful of any quizzical looks, so that I could provide support if needed. At the end of each group assignment, I called on students to share what they did and how they arrived there.
Analysis of Teaching Demonstration
When I think about the things I wish I could go back and change, nervousness is at the top of that list. However, that is not something you can really control; besides I was only nervous at the start of my lesson. Perhaps it had more to do with having to teach a lesson rather than present a lesson or give a general presentation. The second thing I would definitely change was my fumble on meronyms. During my lesson, I say that sky is a meronym, when I meant to say, that stars, moon and sun are meronyms, as they are parts of the sky. My follow-up via email however, corrected this. When considering the feedback I received, I would consider changing my aim from analyzing a text to strictly identifying devices that help in analyzing a text. And perhaps adding more time at the end of the lesson to have the class talk about how the theme affected their rewrite and illustrating how it could aid them in analyzing a text. One way I could have done this is to ask why they think Cummings used hyponyms besides for reasons of unity- just to have them think about the theme in greater detail. I said during the feedback phase, I wanted to stick closely to my actual lesson, so I would not want to change too much. I did, however, make concessions when I discussed meronyms, but that was because I did not want to leave any loose ends, plus almost all the groups identified them in their work. I might also consider going slower and giving more examples.
For instance, I could have rewritten the last eight lines too. I feel like that might have provided the students with a clearer understanding of what I was asking of them. I thought I asked if I was clear frequently, but sometimes students will say they are clear, but they lose clarity when it comes to practicing what they think they understand. I was surprised at several things; first, how my nervousness faded as the class went on; I believe that being the authority in that setting forced it away. I had to provide detail and support and I could not do that effectively and be jittery at the same time; it was important to me that my lesson was student centered. Thinking about authority; I feel like it came naturally. When I looked at the video I am surprised at how I was able to switch frequently between instructor, observer and facilitator with ease. I believe this was because I wanted them to grasp the concept. If I had to choose something that worked really well, it would definitely be this. I have a lot of improving to do, but I was extremely pleased with how I worked the classroom.
I did not agree with allowing them to use part of the text in their rewrite. I feel like that would be giving them the easy way out, if I had let them rely on the text they would not have been practicing; they would simply be replacing. Paulo Freire puts it neatly when he states, “For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention” (71). So, the best strategy for them to understand the concept was to have them recreate the last eight lines using originality. During the class, some students had some difficulty because they thought too hard about what they were being asked to do. Some of them were reverting to literary devices, when they were bringing up tone, alliteration and metaphor, which is easy to do when examining a poem. One student challenged me a bit about hyponyms, which I especially enjoyed because it shows that she was really thinking about what she was working on. She was not correct, but she was not too far off base. I believe this is why I walked a fine line with teaching linguistic devices. I was careful not to make the lesson too broad. While, I am sure there is a balance, I have not mastered that. But, I could always do a two part lesson where the first part deals with literary devices and the second linguistic devices. Other areas I feel worked well were when I had to call attention back to the lesson when students started to go off topic. I did not feel awkward demanding attention. Another thing I thought worked well was I stood my ground. For example, I stuck to the lesson without going off course, except to explain meronyms, but that was closely related. I did not let the groups off the hook or allow them to substitute example of hyponyms from the text. They had to use their creativity and think critically, especially, while doing the rewrite. And the laughter, I liked that there was laughter, which means they were having fun with it. Even if they were laughing at me, I welcome a light atmosphere. I thought my persona during the lesson spoke to this. I was straightforward, but easy going. I smiled a great deal and my smile was authentic- I enjoyed myself. If I had to choose a persona, authentic would be it. I do not want to pretend. I want to be direct, but easy going, I want to act as a learner too and learn from my students. I know that every situation may not be a learning situation, but most interactions in a classroom are learning experiences, especially when there is dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment