• Previous message: Sukatunkb@aol.com: "Re: Question"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrea Martine: "Question"
• Next in thread: Nankies@aol.com: "Re: Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In a message dated 3/23/00 7:19:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
hagemeis@massed.net writes:

<< Andrea,
 
 This may be an oversimplification of the issue but I think you have to do
both (or at least try). Obviously if you can't "hook" them, they won't read
the "classic" literature and you haven't accomplished anything anyway. When I
was a beginning English teacher (over 20 years ago --yikes!), I was
 armed with a love of literature, enthusiasm and extraordinary naivete. I was
eager to discuss every nuance of a work I was teaching. Now I realize that in
some ways "less is more." I focus on the few objectives that I think are
really necessary to accomplish and try to have students complete
 more of the analysis through individual and group work and activities. I
don't "cover" everything, but they "get" more out of the class.
>>
So true! Giving them the tools to dissect, and doing all the work of
discovery are two different things. What I hope to find in this class and
discussion group is some linkage between works where I can teach one literary
aspect, then have my students locate evidence of it at work in another text.
As a fairly new elementary teacher recently credentialed in secondary
language arts, I struggle with wanting to share all my own insights......
                              
     Nancy Reynolds Kiester / Medford, Oregon

• Next message: Nankies@aol.com: "Re: Question"
• Previous message: Sukatunkb@aol.com: "Re: Question"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrea Martine: "Question"
• Next in thread: Nankies@aol.com: "Re: Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Send a message to the list: