• Previous message: Cheryl A. Schober: "Re(2): Question"
• Next in thread: Cheryl A. Schober: "Re(2): Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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

Andrea,
I agree with your concept of "less is more"--if there is something that I
think is key to a piece of literature and my students are not "getting it"
on their own, then I will talk about it. But overall, I do like the
students to do the analysis process on their own or through group
activities.
Cheryl

• Next message: Cheryl A. Schober: "Re(2): Question"
• Previous message: Cheryl A. Schober: "Re(2): Question"
• Next in thread: Cheryl A. Schober: "Re(2): Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Send a message to the list: