Maud in the Classroom

We finished and complemented our Jane Eyre study with a brief look at the poem "Maud Muller," comparing and contrasting the setting, scene and themes.  Those who read this blog from time to time  may know that I have a personal connection to Maud; I have long looked forward to introducing the poem to a great class. Yesterday was the day. It was a simple lesson, which the students enjoyed, and it gave me insight into some ways my students learn.

Basically the lesson was a close reading of "Maud Muller." I began by reading the entire poem aloud (they were to read it at home before class) and initiated a discussion of the story arc and themes of the poem, compared it to the story and themes of Jane Eyre in literary and historical context, and finished with a discussion of literary techniques and poetical form. The rhymed couplets and even rhythm in Maud are perfect for quick classroom study, and a fine form to study before Hamlet, our next read.

When we completed all that, I asked, "Is it easy or difficult to write in rhymed couplets?"

"Easy," said He-Who-Always-Answers-First.

How easily the young fall into that old trap!  This was the perfect set-up for a poetry-writing lesson. He quickly recanted, but it was too late. Ha!

Each student was asked to write 3 pairs of rhyming couplets on Jane Eyre. This "easy" lesson was, in fact, easy for some, but quite difficult for others.  I found that the students who struggle with clear prose write beautiful poetry, and the student with the best prose barely eked out the 6 lines. The Well-Coiffed-One stunned me with rhymed, unexpected, polysyllabic words which worked wonderfully. The students' work, read aloud, lead to a refresher lesson on assonance. There were quite a few assy-thingummys* in the work of the Usual Suspect, which made us wonder about the ease of rhyme...or not.

As in any class, talents vary. Discovering those talents is the first step in providing students with an opportunity to use and enhance them, and provides me with another means to enhance my skills in the gentle art of assessment.

* cf. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Edmund seems unfamiliar with assonance, calling it an "assy-thingummy."

Can't Stop the Dickensian Discussion!

Remember last week?  How things have changed.

Students were asked to bring in a favorite passage from our reading, or a passage they wished to look at in more depth. We read about young Jerry's imagined flight from an animated coffin. We read about the "hospital procession" and later discovered that the very excellent Stanford site could help us see that it was simply a description of a piece of furniture. And we were most disturbed to reread the chocolate preparation scene after we heard a student tell us of his research, revealing that it might be a darkly satirized Catholic Mass, a revelation which certainly changed our view of the passage.

This was supposed to be our last meeting on Dickens, and our first on the next book, but the latter part of the plan did not work out. Everything we tried to discuss in the next book steered the conversation back to England and France.

I have created monsters who can't stop talking about A Tale of Two Cities.

The big argument?  Miss Manette's role in the story. The astute students complained that she did nothing in the story. Yet, we considered the story without her; would it work?

 It sure would have been shorter, they mused. But that wasn't the end of the chatter.

While she is not the active subject of the story, she is the object of several story lines. Is it fair to her character to say that she's the object that drives the story?  Remove Miss Manette, and what motivates each character? Some considered it thoughtfully.  The Usual Suspect was not stirred, and would have her removed from the story no matter how dull the story might become. In his revolution, Miss Manette would be the first to lose her head.

We tried again to go on the the next book, but there the female characters are stronger, prompting more comparisons. Students could not resist turning back once more to Dickens. They needed to express their admiration for Miss Pross, and even for Mme. DeFarge and the seamstress. The conversation went on and on...

But we don't just chat about literature. We are using the Lost Tool of Writing course as a guide to better rhetoric. The students completed a deliberative essay on TTC last week, yet several of my fine young scholars have opted to write a second essay on TTC rather than go on to the next novel. They have, it seems, discovered that there is something about Dickens, something that makes one like him more as understanding of his work grows, something revealed only by rereading, something which makes us unwilling to move on, as if moving on will mean leaving a good friend behind. In short, there is something more to be said.

As an added delight, during our history lesson on the French Revolution a student announced that it was easy to remember the events because of TTC. And there was much agreement.

I declare success.

On Teaching Dickens to the Mob

Ask nearly anyone and you will hear that any study of any book by Dickens in any high school class was the worst of times. Many will tell you that they never picked up another book by Dickens again. Even the name of the author elicits a visceral response. My own son*, an avid reader and a fan of Dickens, was horrified by the treatment of Great Expectations in his high school class. So, when I heard that I would be teaching A Tale of Two Cities for the homeschooled high schoolers in my coop class, I was excited (such a wonderful book!), but nervous, too.  Would my method make the students hate Dickens? Would my small mob of students send Dickens to the Bastille, and call for my execution? Could anything save Dickens form the classroom treatment?

I'll have to get back to you on that.

The coop meets once a week.  I set aside three weeks for our discussion, one for each book within the book. Since this is the first novel we are reading this year, I thought the students might have started reading it over the summer. Some did. Most finished. Those who did not were close enough to finish shortly after our planned last day of discussion. That's one small success.

But that may have been the only success at that point, and I'm sad to say it. Discussion was forced and slow at times, with only brief, punctuated expressions of real understanding. Despite Dickens' long drawn-out character descriptions, the students had a hard time identifying the heroic figures. One student--a voracious reader--did not recognize which character is executed, and blamed the author's overuse of the pronoun "he" towards the end of the novel (perhaps a valid complaint!).  At that point I realized I had to radically change the way I "taught" Dickens.

There is no secret formula, though with my own homeschooled kids it seemed simple:  Read or listen to a book together, talk about it, share passages, compare it with experience or other reading, etc. It's very natural to learn this way; leisurely reading and discussing promotes deep understanding. This does not work well in the classroom due mainly to time constraints. The students had clearly rushed the reading just for the sake of completing it on time. Of course, this is the nature of classrooms everywhere, and not the fault of the students at all. But for encouraging the sheer joy of reading, this method is fundamentally wrong. Moreover, though I have known these students for many years and despite having had countless quick book discussions with some of them, and deep discussions of Shakespeare with others, conversation was not at all spontaneous.

I needed these kids to love Dickens; this was personal.

With some flexibility in the class, I was able to expand discussion for another two sessions. Yesterday was the first of the two.  But would anything be better? Only if I changed my approach, I thought, but how? I walked into class with no plan, but began to ask questions, as usual.

Did we read this too quickly?
All agreed.
Would you read this book again?
A few weakly raised hands. If I had more time, one girl said.
And there was one emphatic No from the Usual Suspect.
Why not?
It's too long!
Have you ever read any Dickens before?
Yes, I read A Christmas Carol. It was shorter.
Laughter.
So, would A Tale of Two Cities been better if it were shorter?
Yes! Yes! Yes!

Light bulb moment.  They were excited about something.

What would you have left out?

Aha! The classroom mob awakened!  Recalled to life, perhaps?

Shouts and discussion.  Intense descriptions of passages in detail. Arguments for keeping certain passages. The Usual Suspect complained that he read a long passage thinking it was so long so that it might foreshadow some other event, but was disappointed when it seemed did not. Another student countered that it did, in fact, foreshadow, and US had simply missed it. Where was the reprise?

30 minutes of debate raged on before we ran out of time. Clearly, they knew the book better than they (and I) thought they did. Clearly, they got it. Clearly, they needed more time to ruminate. I declared another week on the book, asking the students to bring their favorite passages to class, and to be prepared to defend their choices. I anticipate continued excellence and enthusiasm.

We concluded the class with a reminder that the book, like many in the era, was serialized in 31 weekly installments.  Imagine 31 weeks to discuss the book! Too much? Maybe, but three weeks is the worst of times.

*The one who attended high school.
Illustration source:  http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_of_Two_Cities