In my ENGL 5340 class, Monsters vs. Science, we read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Frankenstein deals with many complex
ideas and metaphors that are used to describe the world that Dr. Frankenstein
lives in. While reading this book my professor asked us to ponder the idea that
the monster is actually a modern day representation of Adam from the Garden of
Eden. When he first introduced this foreign concept my brain had trouble
processing exactly what this meant. My professor lets us think quietly to
ourselves for a couple of minutes. He then went to specific passages from
within the book to help support his claim. This particular professor showed me
that in order to make claim and reach conclusions that may seem far-fetched or a
big stretch are sometimes the biggest and best conclusions to make. He also
showed me that in order to prove your point you have to have provide evidence
that supports your claim otherwise people will not find you to be a credible
source.
In comparison to the teachings of Buehl, my professor didn't
really front-load us to much, if at all. He was more about the art of discovery
within his classroom. This form of instruction did sometimes leave us feeling ungrounded when we
would leave the class, but there was always a feeling of stepping out into
uncharted water that made it all worth it in the end. As to what I can learn
from this teacher I would say that the most important thing is that sense of
accomplishment when I would make connection or draw conclusions that no one had
thought about in the class, and when challenged upon my stance I could find the
proper evidence to support my claim.
Alex, I agree 110% with your comment about the most important thing that you gained from your professor in this experience is the need for students to feel a sense of accomplishment from a job well done. A lot of times that satisfaction is all a student needs to have the motivation to dig a little deeper and do a little better. As teachers, it is our job to provide opportunities for students to get that taste of success that will keep them wanting to learn.
ReplyDeleteHi Alex,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you've read the new Common Core State Standards for
English/Language Arts, but they are all about "close readings" and "textual evidence." So it's a great practice that if a student ever says something, "e.g., I think the river is an allegory of growth," then I think it's a great idea as a teacher to follow up with, "Great idea...what textual evidence supports your claim?"
So, in regards to frontloading, it sounds like the professor did set a purpose for reading the text, even if it was AFTER you had already read it. His purpose was for you to look and see if the monster was a representation of Adam. That purpose shaped how you read the text a little, right? So you read the text by looking for evidence that supported or refuted that claim.
We are not going to do this in class, but there's a famous psychological experiment where you give students a text about a house. You tell half of the students that they are a thief going to rob the house; and the other half of the students that they are real estate agents trying to sell the house. When you ask them at the end to tell you what they remember about the text, the two groups remember entirely different things. That experiment just shows that even one simple sentence (you are a thief; the monster is Adam) can shape your whole reading experience. So I think as teachers it's important that we set good and clear and interesting purposes or frameworks for reading, as your teacher did.
At the same time, we don't want to be so prescriptive that we don't let students set their own purposes for reading as well. For instance, maybe if you only looked for the monster as Adam, you could have missed out on other possible metaphors or interpretations.
Thanks for your posting!
The "art of discovery". I like that!
ReplyDelete