As Scholes points out, we, as teachers, must realize and be reminded that very few, if any, of our students will go on to study literature at length or depth in college or in their careers. The question then becomes, how do we reach the average/typical English student? Scholes speaks of teaching students “textual power”—“how to use it and how to protect themselves from its abuses” (21). He also states that “it is not so much a matter of generating meanings out of a text as it is a matter of making connections between a particular verbal text and a larger cultural text” (33). Scholes is speaking of what I call the “larger ‘So What?’” of a text. (In his discussion and analysis of Hemingway’s “Interchapter VII,” Scholes expands to this larger “So What,” making statements about war.) Similarly, Linkon comments that “We should be just as concerned about what students are learning about how to read critically and culturally” as we are about their knowledge of specific concepts or terms (257-8).
The point that both authors emphasize here, and throughout their works, is that we need to give students the “tools,” not the answers. This role is key! As Scholes states, “our job is not to intimidate students with our own superior textual production; it is to show them the codes upon which all textual production depends and to encourage their own textual practice” (24-5). As I mentioned in my posting last week, we need to be careful with how much we influence our students and their interpretations. Activities and discussions need to be student-centered and student-led. Scholes discusses how he uses questions to guide close reading and understanding of the textual “codes,” which is something I do in my own classroom. For instance, when students complete the POV writing assignment, Scholes has them consider why they made changes (if they did). Although Scholes doesn’t state it directly, we need to ask these same questions of the original text. “Why did Hemingway do ?” Why didn’t he do ?” To put it in IB English lingo: What is the effect of the piece, and how is that effect achieved? And, “So What?”
Linkon also emphasizes the importance of continuing the conversation(s) about a text. She makes the point that analysis is never really “done” (252)—it’s an ongoing conversation that students enter into at various points and levels, and from various backgrounds and experiences. I saw echoes of Salvatori and Donahue when Linkon discusses expert vs. novice approaches to encountering and dealing with “difficulty” (251). She points out that “experts” ask questions. My IB students question and dig deeper while my regular 10’s give up or complain. My regular students are not aware that deeper understanding rests in figuring out and working through difficulty. As their teacher, I need to do more to teach these strategies and give them the tools!
On that note, I feel that both authors emphasize the importance of modeling. Many of my students have shared that they don’t really understand how to analyze a text, mark-up (annotate) a text, etc. Students need to see and hear us grabble with a text! Modeling is not only beneficial for our students, though—modeling can help us remember the process. I appreciated Linkon’s observations and ideas, her reminders about the process. We skip steps when we teach, forgetting the process. As teachers, it is critical that we don’t lose touch with the process.
Finally, I think both authors acknowledge the idea of expanded literacy. It’s not just about reading and responding to the text in class, but it’s important to learn to go beyond that text and enter the conversation. This expanding notion of literacy also encompasses different forms of communication, and both the expanded notion of literacy and the various forms of communication rely on understanding textual “codes.”
You mention how activities should be student-centered and student-lead. How do you feel about a college classroom, where the students in groups lead the class discussion based on prompts submitted by other students. The professorial role, here, would be minimal input and just a mediator of discussion. Two of my classes last semester were set up like this and one class worked, and the other (maybe because it was based too much in needing to know historical background) was not as successful. Thoughts?
Good point. I should have made this idea more clear in my original post. I definitely think that the teacher/professor needs to be more than just a mediator of the discussion. I guess where I’m going with this idea of “student-centered” and “student-led” discussions and activities goes back to my thoughts on being careful about how much we lead or influence. I think it is important that we start with student observations and questions and go from there. And I think we should ask rather than tell. We should ask questions to guide/lead students to thinking about other ideas, meanings, etc. By no means do I think we should just be a silent observer or mediator. I’ll admit, though–this idea of questioning and pointing things out without telling works much better with my advanced students than it does with my regular-level students. I have not been very succesful with “guiding through questioning” in my regular-level classes. They want the answers, and they don’t want to have to put much work into thinking things out/through. (Quite honestly, it can be painful to ask them questions!) On the other hand, my IB students thrive on student/class-led discussions, and I can use questioning much more effectively to get them to think deeper about the text without giving them the “answers.” There are definitely times that I need to jump in a bit more to get things moving on a more productive track. I might need to ask more specific, quiding questions, or be very direct with my questions and observations.
I guess it depends on the class and the students. I’d like to think it would be the same way in a college classroom.
I love your thoughts on modeling and the role it plays for teachers in forcing us to visibly work through our reading and thinking processes. I’m afraid that I would model the “so what?” too strongly, though, and I do mean get carried away and completely voice my interpretations, when I really want them to just see how to formulate their own. Your comment on students who only want answers makes me fear this over-modeling even more: if they just want answers and I provide a model one will they actually mirror the process to reach their own or repeat mine? The honesty about your struggles with question-lead discussions is comforting. I love the concept of question-based discussions and know I thrive in that environment, but whenever I attempt to formulate discussion questions I just feel like I am leading. Your success with certain classrooms is encouraging and I know I need to really focus back on my own critical reading process to find those questions to produce sincere responses and more questions. Thank you for sharing, so honestly, your classroom experiences.
The modeling question can be very vexing, especially when our modeling appears to be too seamless, too expert. It then becomes intimidating, instead of inviting (Scholes falls into this trap, I think).
For a radical example of a student-led classroom, read this description of one professor’s approach to teaching Melville’s classic “Bartleby the Scrivener.”