Read and post notes for the following:
Applebee et al. (2000) Creating continuance and continuity in the HS literature curricula
Nystrand et al. (1993) Using small groups in the literature classroom
Read The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and think about the following. You may reference other Young Adult literature or classic secondary school texts to think about these issues.
(1) What is the potential of the text for the lower secondary classroom?
(2) What are the limitations of the text?
(3) In light of your previous readings and classroom discussions, discuss about the curriculum choice of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and possible instructional methods.
Reflecting on Nystrand's article, I am sure we have done cooperative learning and small group teaching in our teaching numerous times. A valid point surfaced in the article is the importance to have "coherent activities that result in the sustained production of student knowledge" (p.21). Teachers will have to ensure that there are clear expectations and instructions so that learning is promoted and there is ownership in learning. Effective group work promotes synergy and also allows self and peer assessment. Nystrand also points out that the effectiveness of small-group time depended on its quality and not its frequency.
ReplyDeleteIn Applebee, from the classrooms studied, it seems to show that literature becomes more meaningful if the students are challenged to read beyond their own perspective of gender and culture. If students are allowed to talk about different interpretations and how the texts they are reading relate to their lives, their knowledge and understanding will develop. This allows deeper conversations.
In light of this, how do we teach and engage students to read "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas"? Personally, I do not think that the text gives one a good background to what exactly goes on during World War II and in the death camps in Auschwitz. I am not sure if it is entirely necessary to give a detailed background but some knowledge might be useful. Just some lingering questions:
1. Is it possible for our students to empathize with any of the characters in the text?
2. If there is no possibility for our students to relate the main issues to their life's experiences, what should we then surface from the text?
3. How much background / details of WWII should we provide our pupils (if it is necessary)?
Hi Nazlin, on your question on whether it's possible for students to empathize with the characters in the novel- yes, I think they can make connections to their own life in relation the friendships they've forged. At sec one especially, they would have had to leave their old friends behind and would be in the process of forming new ties. Even if there are elements in the story which may be alienating (eg the WWII context), at the heart of it, is a compelling story about friendship.
ReplyDeleteWhat I like about the Applebee article is that it offers ideas on how students could learn about different perspectives. For the most part, teachers simply assume that students can learn about perspectives through covering units which feature various points of view or simply by having a discussion on the concept of'voice'. But more often than not, these discussions are treated as discreet units and students don't really make meaninful connections. So I like how in Emily French's class, "the frameworks...became the real lessons of the class, the centers of the conversational domain." It seems that the study of culture is French's pedagogical goal. She offers her students alternative ways of reading the world and constructs pluralistic strands in the conversation through the patterns she expects her students to perceive.
In Hutchinson's class the students are also offered a variety of frameworks to delve into character study. But what I had reservations about was that in the cooperative learning groups that she used it was observed that "achieving consensus was more often the criterion for success" rather than searching for a right answer. So are the students expected to settle on a reading that the group collectively agrees on? I'm wondering if this could work to undermine the purpose of providing them with multiple frameworks in the first place. Shouldn't tolerance of ambiguity be valued over a consensus reading in such a classroom?
Brigit
Hi
ReplyDeleteApparently, reading a narrative 'lights up' neurons in our brain, stimulating sensations we would have experienced in real life. In other words, reading simulates reality. This seems to suggest that we have the capacity for empathy, to "climb into [another person's] skin and walk around in it" (To_Kill_a_Mockingbird). However, as Rashmi's presentation on reader-response asked, as readers who come to the text with "cultural baggage", our capacity for this so-called "empathy" depends also on our recognition of the limits of our identification. As such many Learning Journeys and Moral Education lessons in schools attempt to thwart these limits and cultivate "empathy" by getting students to "become aware" of the similarities (leaving their friends behind for instance) and differences (WWII context for instance) between their culture and that of others. But so what? To what extent does this "awareness" lead to the cultivation of "better" people? If a "good" person is defined by his actions, how does empathy lead to "prosocial action" when ultimately, my actions are still, I think, determined by my beliefs and also by my own limit situations - why should I help others at the expense of myself and my family unless I wish to die a martyr and attain sainthood? Empathy then is nothing more than a kind of an awareness of false consciousness (I'm not so sure if it is accurate to make such a comparison, but I'm just going to anyway), it does not necessarily lead to the making of "better" people. Ultimately, I think it is our value systems that determines our actions and thus "critical thinking" as and when implemented in the classroom has to be brave enough not just recognize the limits of identification, but to be brave enough to challenge value systems; why something is 'right' or why something is 'wrong' and make people feel angry, outraged or shamed enough to want to do something to change a perceived act of injustice -- anger after all breeds anger, and as we've seen in the recent General Elections, has led to change, and changing notions of what is "right" and what is "wrong".
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas will work quite well as lower secondary literature text.
ReplyDeleteIt is written in simple language thus it would not pose a difficulty to most students and the matter of the Holocaust is written in a thoughtful and non-accusatory tone. It enables rich reading as readers are to draw conclusions from the text rather than simply be told what happens. It offers much room for rich classroom discussions. In addition, it is written from a child’s perspective thus the students will be able identify with Bruno’s concerns, feelings and confusion. Through his innocence and lack of awareness of World War II, who was Fury, what was Out-With and even what his father did, Bruno offers us a different view of the holocaust. The danger, the fear of the Jews like Pavel, the inhumane conditions that they had to suffer through and the horror that awaits them is set against the innocence of friendship between two boys who are literally on two sides of a fence. This book will allow students to look at what happens in the book more closely and also offer different perspectives as the characters are multi-layered. For example, the Commandant has many facets to his character and these can be inferred from what people say about him and also their reactions to him. Furthermore, students will be able to make links to what they know about WWII and the holocaust, what happened in the text and also what is happening in the world around us.
However, there are some limitations. At the lower secondary level, students may not have the necessary historical knowledge about what happened in concentration camps during WWII to appreciate the novel. They lack the historical and cultural context and while this can be taught or researched on, some may not understand the circumstances and may not understand the greater significance of the events in the text. The world that they live in is also far removed from the word of the text.
I enjoyed reading The Boy in the Striped Pyajamas. I think this text, as Kodi mentions, could be effective as it is written in simple language. Also, it delves into the innocent of a child, thus, making it very personal and relevant for the lower secondary students. As Elizabeth mentions though, the text questions right and wrong and the ways in which we are complicit in the 'wrongdoings' of the world.
ReplyDeleteBruno's narrow worldview in contrast to Shmuel's hardened knowingness lends itself to possible crtitical inquiry of charaterisation.
A limitation of the text in my opinion, is that it could provide a rather narrow view of the holocaust to students. Rabbi Benjamin Blech described the book as "not just a lie and not just a fairytale, but a profanation". Despite the book's intentions, he argues, the plot is highly improbable and gives credence to the defence that people did not, and could not, know what was happening within the death camps. Students who read it, he warns, may believe the camps "weren't that bad" if a boy could conduct a clandestine friendship with a Jewish captive of the same age, unaware of "the constant presence of death".
How do we ensure a sense of continuity and coherence in framing a literature curriculum for secondary students? What kind of objectives do we wish the students to accomplish through the study of literature? When I read the articles for today’s lesson, I realised how we as teachers continuously try to make our literature curriculum engaging and relevant for the current generation of students. I feel the IB system works best as helping students become critical learners and thinkers. I speak out of my own experience as I have a cousin who just completed her IB education in India. The students were encouraged to be immersed in the subject of art and literature in the true sense of the word. I think this kind of study prepares the student to appreciate literature and its study in-depth. Students read the text to understand and dissect for meaning. Instead of merely learning the text as piece meal, they were made to think of the background and subject matter. This I felt was an interesting way to approach the subject matter. I think students learn more when they think and do. Applebee feels that curriculum should provide a domain for conversation. I feel that books used in literature should spark off real conversations. Students should be able to feel compelled about the issues in the book and be encouraged to make relevant connections to real life.
ReplyDeleteSo, how do we fit in a book like " The boy in the striped pyjamas" into the curriculum? How do we make it relevant for students today? When I consider how the book itself is positioned, I wonder whether the ending of the story warns students about the consequences of crossing over. I feel the students will be able to connect to some parts of the book about friendship and the troubles that come about with it. I think it can make students take into account the diversity of Singapore and how making friends across different cultures throws up its pros and cons. Students can study the scene between Bruno, his friend shmuel and lieutanant kotler as a challenge for Bruno to openly declare his friendship with Shmuel. What does that tell the students about Bruno? Does this incident change the student's viewpoint of Bruno? Does Bruno's action make him more or less human? Students might think of certain incidents in their life and maybe write about them. Their personal experience might inform or enhance their understanding of the book and its relationships. This I see as a method of producing knowledge - in action as student actively draws parallels between the text and their own life.
I also feel that another novel like "The Kite Runner" would give students another perspective. Maybe they can compare and contrast both.
On another note, I feel the story might inspire students to engage in acts of courage, but the ending is unsettling as the author concludes that the story happened a long time ago and has no possibility of ever happening again. What can we hope students to learn from its abrupt conclusion? How can we so easily dislodge whatever happened to Bruno? In reading, we make connections and identifications with the character. Some students might truly identify with the escapades of Bruno and suddenly feel a sense of loss. I feel students at this age will be in the process of forming their own identity. This kind of novel can be quite disturbing for young students.
I think to study this novel as a whole, students must be exposed to history of the Jews. Only then will they appreciate the feelings echoed in the novel. Otherwise, I feel this novel will be seen as just another story that happened in some other time and place. I don't think that's what we want our students to do.