The school year has begun and here in Israel we have just enjoyed our New Year’s festivities, including Rosh Hashana, which we celebrate with the beginning of the Hebrew Calendar. I wanted to share with my readers some excellent Literature units that student teachers created over the Summer holidays. I hope that you will find them useful in your high school classrooms this year.
The first set that I am uploading deal with issues that have to do with Good and Evil. Literature is a wonderful vehicle for encouraging our students to think about values and how to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Also, if we do nothing, if we choose not to get involved, is this also a choice? The following units were created by one of our English teachers at the boys Yeshiva where I work. Her name is Lisa Melamed and she is both talented and passionate about her teaching. We should all have teachers the caliber of Lisa, both as colleagues and in our classrooms. I hope that you will enjoy teaching the following units!
Musee Des Beaux Arts By W.H. Auden (poem)
One Ordinary Day with Peanuts By Shirley Jackson (short story)
Negro Mother By Langston Hughes (poem)
Wishing you all a successful and enjoyable year!
This summer I have had the pleasure to be an instructor in a course at the David Yellin College to students who want to re-train to become EFL teachers in Israel. The group is intelligent, motivated and eager to bring their skills into our EFL classrooms. I have designed the course to show the students how to teach literature and higher order thinking skills in the EFL curriculum. The course includes articles discussing the background of EFL in Israel and the rationale for infusing higher order thinking skills into an English based literature curriculum. Below are two articles I wrote for the course.
In addition, the students are required to create a “mini” literature unit at the end of the course which I hope to share on this site with other EFL teachers. As always, your comments and your ideas for literature units and projects are welcomed. Wishing you an enjoyable rest of the summer holidays.
Higher Order Thinking- Definition, Traits and Methods for Teaching These Skills- Results of One Study on Students’ Bridging Essays and Opinions on the Literature Module for Infusing HOTS
Dr. Karen Guth
Higher order thinking is a reasoned, purposive and introspective approach to solving problems or addressing questions with incomplete evidence and information for which an incontrovertible solution is unlikely (Rudd, Baker & Hoover 2000:5). The essential aspect of this definition is the approach to problem solving and the expectation that there probably will be more than one plausible answer to any given problem. Inherent in this concept of higher order thinking is the belief that there could be many perspectives to the dilemma and therefore, solving it involves an on-going process and a commitment to hard work, as well as embracing uncertainty along the way.
Higher order thinking firstly encompasses the skill and ability to discern the difference between information which is relevant and useful and that which is not in viewing and understanding a situation or a problem. This means being skeptical of ideas or solutions that do not differentiate between the various aspects of a dilemma or predicament. Secondly, it includes organizing that information into useful chunks or categories that enable one to begin to clarify the process needed to address the situation or problem. Thirdly, higher order thinking entails developing initiatives, methodologies or solutions that include logical, creative and moral thinking. It requires a commitment to open-mindedness, the ability to recognize one’s mistakes when proven wrong and an on-going understanding that to embrace higher order thinking involves hard work. Higher order thinking can be taught and it can be measured.
TRAITS AND DISPOSITIONS OF THE HIGHER ORDER THINKER
- Scepticism and trust
To learn to think critically we must be able to discern clearly what we can trust to be as it seems from what is not true and to know when it is useful to be skeptical. Lipman (2003:32) actually defines higher order thinking as the ability to practice a “healthy skepticism.”
The inquisitive person is one who values knowing how things work, being well-informed and sees the value in learning even if there is not an immediate reward for it. The process of asking questions leads to discovering knowledge and without that trait of inquisitiveness; human beings would not advance in their understanding of their world or the people in it.
Higher order thinkers must be creative thinkers as well, generating many possible solutions and choosing the best one. . Liaw’s (2007:4) research supports this theory which states that learners must be creative in their production of ideas and be able to critically support them with rational explanations and examples.
- Fair-mindedness or open-mindedness
According to MacKnight (2000:38), a critical thinker must be able to examine logical relationships in arguments, respect diverse perspectives and look at phenomena from different points of view. These abilities enable higher order thinkers to be flexible enough to change their thinking when their reason leads them to do it. Paul (1992:12) concludes that to be fair-minded we must interact with and exchange ideas with others as a way to correct and balance our thinking. “If we commit to fair-mindedness, we struggle intimately with our own limited insight and hence with our bias.”
- Critical attitude
McPeck (1990:16) posits, to think critically about one’s own thinking means to appreciate the strengths and limitations of one’s own knowledge. He refers to this as a “critical attitude”. For Norris (2003:5), thinking critically is a necessary condition for being an educated and moral person while Siegel (1980:14) argues in the same vein that, in the end students must become critical thinkers so that they are able to make decisions for themselves.
6. Confidence in reason
The higher order thinker must have what Paul (1992:14) refers to as intellectual perseverance. To become a critical thinker is not easy. It takes effort and the ability to struggle with confusion. A higher order thinker must develop confidence in reason, “confidence in reason does not deny the reality of intuition; rather, it provides a way of distinguishing intuition from prejudice”.
Methods for teaching HOTS
1. General reasoning approach and scaffolding method
The general reasoning approach advocates teaching higher order thinking as a skill or trait separate from the content area. Advocates of this philosophy argue that just as domain specific knowledge is essential to acquiring more domain specific understanding, teaching general skills in higher order thinking and practicing them in different situations makes them more transferable to a variety of domains and circumstances both inside and outside of the classroom setting. This general reasoning approach views higher order thinking skills and traits as having their own rules, definitions and pedagogy. When its concepts are taught and practiced, outside of the context of a specific topic, they are more transferable to specific subject domains.
2. Subject specific approach and infusion method
Those who advocate the subject specific approach when teaching higher order thinking conclude that those people who have a strong ability to critically think are able to do this because of their mastery of content knowledge. They argue that reasoning and learning develop together through active application of subject specific knowledge, within a problem solving context.
3. Mixed approach and schemata and cooperative learning methods
Other researchers argue that what is essential in learning and understanding is the ability to transfer what one has learned to a new situation or subject. In order to do this, students need to learn the general principles of higher order thinking as well as examples of and practice within specific domains of knowledge.
Why HOTS should be integrated into the study of literary texts
Literature is a vehicle for learning and practicing HOTS. Shen (1997:258) showed in her study that higher order thinking emerges from discussions on the literature studied in class. Abu Shihab (2007:209) argues that when we read we predict, compare and evaluate. Reading involves an interaction between thought and language in which the reader must interact with the text in order to create meaning. Elder and Paul (2010:32) concur with this argument by stating that the critical mind improves reading by reflectively thinking about how it reads and what it reads. This research also shows the success of infusing HOTS into the learning of literature. The study of quality, relevant and varied literary texts enable students to engage in HOTS. Therefore, EFL programs should encourage the reading of literary texts and the development of HOTS exercises which include discussions and writing using HOTS.
The following are some of the results revealed by a study conducted in 2016 as part of my Doctorate of Education in Curriculum Studies.
- Students enjoy the challenge of an EFL literature curriculum which infuses HOTS
The majority of the students who responded stated that they did enjoy reading the literary texts studied in the program. Answers varied from it caused them to think, improved their English, taught them about other cultures, imparted strong life messages and the material was interesting to them.
The stories, novels, plays and poems naturally lent themselves to infusing HOTS. The top four choices of HOTS that the students chose to mention and that they described properly were, predicting, cause and effect, uncovering motives and compare and contrast. These four HOTS encouraged discussions on characters in a story (uncovering motives, comparing and contrasting), or the plot of the story (cause and effect, predicting what will happen), or poetry (compare and contrast the stanzas and their meaning). These are only a few examples of how natural it is to infuse HOTS into literature as a domain subject.
Moreover, students explained that the learning and practicing of these HOTS skills are something which they can and will apply to other reading and writing tasks. Students felt that they would be able to apply the HOTS of, predicting, uncovering motives, cause and effect and making connections, as the top choices of HOTS that could be applied to their reading. The students chose cause and effect, compare and contrast, uncovering motives, predicting, applying and explaining patterns as HOTS that they now knew how to apply to written formats.
All of these HOTS skills were taught and practiced in the literature program. Students learned to identify them in the literature and practice them when answering questions on the literary texts. As a result, they understood the meaning of the HOTS because the teacher had several opportunities to spiral the various HOTS within the literature while reading and analyzing each piece
- HOTS infused in an EFL literature programme improves students’ writing
The empirical findings reveal that the curricular initiative of infusing HOTS into a literature program helps students to become stronger English writers. The students’ improvement in their overall writing skills with each subsequent essay was steady. The application of HOTS in the students’ bridging essays also showed improvement over the two year period.
Abu Shihab, I. 2007. Critical thinking and reading. Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 51(4):300–302.
Elder, L. & Paul, R. 2010. Critical thinking development: A stage theory. Critical Thinking Organisation. Available at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-development-a-stage-theory/483 (accessed on 7/6/2013).
Liaw, M. 2007. Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. English. Teaching and Learning, 31(2):45–87.
Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacKnight, C. 2000. Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 4(4):38–41
McPeck, J.E. 1990. Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4):10–12.
Norris, S.P. 1985. Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, 42(8):40–45.
Paul, R. 1992. Critical thinking: what, why, and how. New Directions for Community Colleges, 77(77):3–24.
Rudd R., Baker M. & Hoover, T. 2000. Undergraduate agriculture student learning styles and critical thinking abilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3):2–12
Shen, F. 1997. Enabling higher-level thinking process in ESL reading: an examination of three instructional approaches. Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on English Teaching, Ohio State University, Ohio
Siegel, H. 1980. Critical thinking as an educational ideal. The Educational Forum, 45(1):7–23.
Background, Influences and Development of the English Teaching Curriculum in Israel
Dr. Karen Guth
The principles and standards for learning English as a foreign language in Israel have been influenced over the years by three major forces; firstly by English becoming the lingua franca in the world; secondly by the Communicative language teaching movement’s influence on teaching English as a second and foreign language and thirdly the movement from Behaviorist to Constructivist-oriented methodology in the classroom.
The 21st century has seen an unprecedented global expansion of EFL learning as English has developed as the leading global lingua franca (Fishman, Cooper &Conrad 1977: xii). Graddol (2006:70) argues that extensive curriculum reforms are taking place as people are required to operate in this globalized world and improving proficiency in English forms a key part of the educational strategies in most countries, including Israel.
The second factor, the Communicative Language Teaching Movement, which can trace its beginnings to the end of the 1960’s, through the 1970’s (Tarone &Yule 1989:17; Howatt & Widdowson 2004:258; Swarbrick 1993:1) evolved into a methodology which promoted communicative competence in the English language). Under the influence of Communicative language teaching (CLT), grammar-based methodologies gave way to functional and skills-based teaching, which includes fluency activities based on small interactive group work (Richards 2006:3; Nunan 2003:6-7).
The third influence, a move from Behaviorist to Constructivist methodology, shifted the EFL classroom from a teacher-centered environment to a more student-centered one and laid the foundation for alternative assessments such as portfolios. The EFL Curriculum prior to 1977 focused on grammar, vocabulary acquisition and literature (oral exam for students in the Government state schools that were not specifically teaching a vocation). Because of the three major forces that influenced EFL mentioned above the 1977 EFL Curriculum, introduced by the English Inspectorate in Israel, emphasized English as a global language of communication and focused on the practical use of the language. This also had an effect on the English literature that was being taught in EFL classes in Israel. The literature syllabus was altered to include more modern works which would contribute to communication skills (Gefen 2012:31).
The 1988 EFL curriculum which replaced the 1977 curriculum stated as one of its aims that English should be taught as a means of heightening intellectual awareness through language study, raising linguistic consciousness and attaining insight into language (Culture Ministry of Education English Curriculum 1988:5). It, however, does not mention, in any of its aims or objectives, the study of literature and relegates literature to part of an oral test given only to students at the highest level of English competency.
Literature becomes part of an external oral examination in the 1988 EFL Curriculum, worth approximately 5% of the overall English Matriculation examination. Two outside examiners (English teachers from a different school) came to the high school and orally tested students on one of the five pieces of literature that they were required to learn during their high school studies (Kopinsky 2014). By 1990, due to budgetary issues, the literature exam was administered internally by the EFL teachers in each high school and by 1991 the learning of literature texts became part of the EFL yearly school grade and there was no separate matriculation examination either internally or externally.
It would be another 13 years before a new English Curriculum would be published by the Ministry of Education. In 1994, an English Advisory Committee met and drafted a list of Proficiency Guidelines to explore alternative approaches to teaching English as a foreign language in Israel. It wasn’t until 2001 that this Committee’s work was published as, Principles and Standards for Learning English as a Foreign Language for All Grades, English Curriculum (Culture Ministry of Education English Curriculum 2001). The new guidelines were organised according to the traditional division of language proficiency into the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. These guidelines provided a map for the revision of the matriculation examinations, referred to as The Bagrut Examinations, which were published in June 1996 (Culture Ministry of Education EFL Curriculum 2001:10). The domains include appreciation of literature, access to information in both written and spoken English and presentation in both spoken and written English.
In 2007 a new national educational policy was adopted by the Israeli Ministry of Education. This policy, called “Pedagogical Horizon for Learning” encouraged an infusion approach to teaching HOTS in which thinking was integrated into the school curricula rather than taught as an independent subject.
In 2008, the English Inspectorate decided that it wanted to bring literature back into the EFL Curriculum as a subject that would once again be a part of the written Matriculation (Bagrut) examinations (Lifschitz 2008:108). However, now the goal was to teach literature using higher order thinking and incorporating critical thinking as part of the benchmarks that students are required to reach. This initiative began with a pilot program that started with the strongest level of EFL students, namely those who take the five point matriculation examinations (Bagrut) in English.
At the end of 2012 the Culture Ministry of Education revised the 2001 English as a foreign language curriculum to “expand the document, resulting in a curriculum that will better address the needs of teachers, material writers and test designers” (Culture Ministry of Education English Curriculum 2012:5). The expansion of the 2001 curriculum includes a number of updated components. Three of those are in the area of higher order thinking skills, information communications technology (ICT) and literature at all levels.
Culture, Ministry of Education State of Israel. 1988. English curriculum. Jerusalem.
Culture, Ministry of Education State of Israel. 2001. English curriculum. Jerusalem.
Culture, Ministry of Education State of Israel. 2012. English curriculum. Jerusalem.
Fishman J., Cooper, R. & Conrad, A. 1977. The Spread of English. Rowley: Newbury House.
Gefen, R. 2012. On literature in the school curriculum and, so it seems, in a test-oriented system of education. ETAI Forum, English Teachers’ Association of Israel. 23(1):31-32.
Graddol, D. 2006. English Next. London: P. Latimer Trend.
Howatt, A.P.R. & Widdowson, H.G. 2004. A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kopinsky, B. English Inspector Kiryat Arbe. Interviewed by: Guth, K. (30th April 2014).
Lifschitz, D. 2008. The literature bagrut module: integrating thinking skills with teaching literature. English Teacher’s Journal, 55:108–110.
Nunan, D. 2003. Methodology, in Nunan D. (ed.). Practical English Language Teaching, Boston: McGraw Hill. 3-22.
Richards, J.C. 2006. Communicative language teaching today, SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Available at: file:///D:/Downloads/Richards-Communicative-Language.pdf. (accessed on 11/9/2011).
Swarbrick, A. 1993. Teaching modern languages. London: Routledge
Tarone, E. & Yule, G. 1989. Focus on the language learner, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I received a WhatsApp from a former student this week telling me that I would be so proud of him because he continues to read in English. He attached a picture of the book he is reading to become a paramedic in the army. The book, “Mosby’s Paramedic Textbook” is the primer for paramedics and one of the tasks he needs to complete before receiving his certificate is to master the information in this book. I told him that I have always been proud of him and that I knew he would make a great paramedic. It is notes such as these, from both current and former students, that make me believe that I have the most cherished and privileged profession in the world; I am a teacher!
What motivates students to want to learn and to continue to learn beyond the years that they are in our classes? In my doctoral research I discovered (good teachers already know this) that if we present interesting materials to students, articles and stories to which they can relate, they are encouraged to want to read them, discuss them and write their own pieces about them.
There are two main theories of motivation, one is intrinsic, meaning that someone finds something that is meaningful and enjoyable and they therefore want to do it. The motivation comes from within the person. There is also extrinsic motivation which is behavior that is driven by external rewards that originate from outside the person, such as grades or money. The best way to motivate students to learn and continuing learning is to encourage them to have intrinsic desires to; master a skill, to value the subject matter and to value the learning activity. In addition, there are researchers such as Chowning, Griswold, Kovarik and Collins *who have found that incorporating ethical dilemmas in the curriculum is one strategy for increasing student motivation.
As English teachers, what do we do with this information? Literature lends itself so beautifully to instilling intrinsic motivation in our students. In addition to interesting novels, plays, stories and poems, we can generate meaningful discussions that revolve around ethical dilemmas of the characters in the texts we read with our students. Short articles can also engender opportunities for discussing and writing about dilemmas.
With the help of many of the talented EFL teachers in Israel I have been able to publish some quality literature logs/portfolios that you may choose to learn with your students. Below are links to more of these units. Enjoy!
*Chowning, J.T., Griswold, J.C., Kovarik, D.N. & Collins, L.J. 2012. Fostering critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills through bioethics education. PLoS ONE, 7(5):1–8.
Many articles and studies have been conducted on how to motivate students to learn or become self-regulated, which means to continue to want to learn on their own with or without a teacher or a classroom or a school. The content we choose as teachers is an essential part of what motivates students to continue to learn. If we return to Ben- David’s article, which I quoted in the December 16th blog post, there are four categories of learning activities that potentially motivate people to learn:
Knowledge arts, the identification and utilization of multi-disciplinary knowledge;
Thinking arts which include problem solving, critical thinking, flexibility, creativity, innovation and risk taking;
Know-how arts, which include design, craftsmanship, technical skills and practical experience;
Interaction arts, which involves curiosity, imagination, motivation, teamwork, activism and sustainability
Moreover, the content we provide in our classrooms is only part of the formula for motivating our students to learn, especially at the end of the year. As Professor Richard L. Curwin writes in his Jerusalem Post article (January 19, 2017), “Discipline and student motivation are interconnected. Any discipline technique that reduces student motivation has no place in school.” Dr. Curwin, most well-known for his worldwide best seller, Discipline with Dignity, argues that threats, rewards and punishments never increase learning outcomes and we should therefore abandon them for more productive methods for motivating our students. He has developed four categories that increase student motivation and I would agree that they, along with interesting and relevant content, are the keys to creating self-regulated students. Curwin states that “if any of the four categories below are increased, student learning will increase”. The categories are:
- How much the teacher cares about a student
- The student’s belief that he/she can succeed
- The passion of the teacher for what she teaches
If you have ideas which utilize Ben- David’s four “arts” or Curwin’s four categories that increase motivation feel free to share them with our readers. I would like to highlight one which was sent to me by a new teacher in one of the schools where I teach. Jennifer Mayer created a wonderful power point presentation with YouTubes that accompany it on the History of the English language, in English of course. Take a look at her presentation which I have uploaded on this blog site. Her Hebrew speakers found it fascinating as did I when I watched it. It definitely provides a powerful example of “knowledge arts” in that it helps all of us identify the foundations of the English language, which the majority of the world utilizes today.
Wishing you all a successful end of the school year with meaningful learning and opportunities to motivate your students to read and to write over their summer vacation!
Jonathan Safran Foer once wrote an article in The New York Times (2013) in which he stated, “We live in a world made up more of story than stuff. We are creatures of memory more than reminders, of love more than likes. ” After over 30 years of teaching, one of the “tips” for teaching I can pass on is that everyone loves a story, especially when that story opens up the world to meaning and understanding. Below is a true story of an unforgettable experience I had this week with three students, physics majors, from one of the high schools I teach in.
The Meaning of Education
Dr. Karen D. Guth
As a teacher with over 30 years’ experience in both America and Israel I search for those moments and opportunities in which my students comprehend that what they learn in their classrooms are not fully realized until they understand how they can apply that knowledge to the world outside of the classroom. I am privileged to teach at an out of the ordinary place, Yeshivat Mekor Chaim, which affords those opportunities to allow the students to experience the true meaning of their education.
On January, 29th, 2017 I found myself in small claims court in Israel after filing a claim against a young man who rammed into my car with his truck, pushing me into a van in front of me and causing tens of thousands shekels worth of damage to my compact Toyota Yaris. Thank God no one was hurt; however, much to my surprise his insurance company refused to pay for the damage to the front of my car arguing that I could not prove that I didn’t first hit the van in front of me when he stopped short and then afterwards was hit from behind by the truck. In Israel, this type of accident is called “sharsheret” where three or more cars are connected as if in a “beaded necklace” one after the other in a smash-up. In this case, unless I have an eye witness to prove that I did not hit the car in front of me before being hit from behind, I will not receive payment for damages to the front of my car.
We are admonished, “Justice, justice, thou shalt pursue” and I felt that it was not “just” that the insurance company of the man who slammed into me should not pay for all of the damage done to my car. Thus, I took both him and his insurance company to court. The challenge was how was I to prove without a witness, that I was not responsible for the damage to the front of my car? My husband suggested that this was a physics problem and that I needed to find someone who could show, with the weight and the speed of the truck that hit me, the weight of my car and the fact that I had stopped and wasn’t moving, that the truck could have pushed me into the van thereby causing damage to the front of my car.
I approached one of my former Mekor Chaim students who is majoring in physics and he took all the information, brought it to two other physics majors and together the three of them worked studiously on the calculations, with the information they had, to estimate how far the truck pushed me. They sent me pictures of the white boards filled with four levels of calculations, which I of course could not understand, the formula they used and the results. They estimated that I had been pushed approximately 3.8 meters as a result of the impact of the truck hitting me from behind.
Wonderful! Now how was I to explain this to a judge when I did not understand the physics myself? I received permission from the Rosh Yeshiva (headmaster) to take the three students with me to court and I sent a special request to the court to allow them to speak on my behalf when it came time to explain the physics of the accident.
These three young men stood by me against the driver of the truck and his insurance representative (no lawyers are allowed in small claims court in Israel, like America) and when I was finished telling my story, complete with toy cars and trucks that I brought as props to explain what happened, one of the boys stood up and proceeded to explain with intelligence, confidence and maturity how it was likely that the damage to my car, both front and back, was the cause of the impact of the 1700 kg truck hitting my 1000 kg car at 40 km per hour.
The judge asked him questions, the insurance representative tried to make him look like a fool and throughout it all our young student held his cool, answered every question with honesty and respect. The other students, who had helped with the physics calculations and provided translation for me as well as advice as to what questions I should ask, all showed the power of knowledge applied to a “real life” situation.
In the end, the insurance representative who opened the case with the comment that there was no way to prove that I didn’t hit the van in front of me before being hit from behind, became nervous because the judge was so impressed with our Yeshivat Mekor Chaim student, that he offered to pay 60% of what I was asking before a judgment was made. I, feeling that this had become so much more than about the money I wanted to recover, decided that it was a good compromise and I was willing to take it.
I will tell you that no one in that room on that day will ever forget what happened there. It was a day that three young students took four years of learning in math and physics and recognized that their learning had helped their teacher to prove that her accident was not her fault. Furthermore, they witnessed the justice system in action in the State of Israel. The adults in the room experienced the full power of a meaningful education when the students displayed their knowledge, understanding and ability to apply what they had learned in a way that lay people could understand. The student who spoke realized that not only is he brilliant in physics but he is articulate, he spoke with confidence and firmness. He held his own against the sometimes antagonistic questions thrown at him by the insurance representative and he answered honestly to the judge when he expressed that he was not at the scene of the accident during the accident but he was confident in their calculations which showed that HaMorah (The teacher) was telling the truth.
Afterwards, my husband and I took the boys out to dinner and we celebrated. We discussed the case, a little Torah, ate and the boys went to a room in the restaurant to daven Mincha before we took them back to school. My husband took a picture at the courthouse of the four of us, each of the students holding one of the toy car props and smiling. We sent the picture out on the school WhatsApp with a caption written by one of the boys, “Physics majors help Morah Karen win big in court. What great students we have at Mekor Chaim!” That was the truth; Morah (teacher) Karen “won big” because she has the privilege of being surrounded by young people with brains, values and heart in an institution that truly understands, the meaning of education.
In the last post I wrote about Liat Ben-David’s concept of “The Four Arts” in education, one of which is “Interaction Arts” that include; curiosity, imagination, motivation, teamwork, activism and sustainability. Today I want to give one tip for initiating an interactive art in the classroom. Students naturally like to work together on assignments. There are some students who prefer working alone, which is fine; however, one of the skills that we should promote in our classrooms, which will be essential for their future, is working together, discussing issues and coming to conclusions or decisions.
The idea of “fishbowl” came from students I once taught from a school in New York. Oftentimes we have questions about material that we teach and we ask students to answer in writing or we ask the questions orally in class and have students raise their hands and wait until we acknowledge them before answering. “Fishbowl” is a cooperative interactive activity that encourages students to work together and to arrive at an answer through discussion. Here is how it works:
The teacher chooses a group (no larger than 6 students) to sit in a circle (in chairs) in the center of the classroom. They are in the “fishbowl”. The teacher then gives them a question. It could be connected to a review on the material before a test or a problem that they have to solve that introduces a new unit. I use this for reviews before literature exams but the possibilities are endless.
The students in the “fishbowl” discuss the question or problem amongst themselves while the other students listen and/or take notes. If a student, not in the “fishbowl”, would like to enter into the discussion he/she must raise his/her hand and be invited to join the group by someone in the center.
One of the best aspects of the “fishbowl” activity is that the teacher is not the center of learning! It is a motivational activity that encourages students to pool their knowledge and experience and to arrive at answers or conclusions as part of a process.
I have had students relate to me that they learned more about the subject through “fishbowl” discussions than they did listening in class or working on the questions alone. Knowledge is something that is acquired through hard work, experience and a collaborative effort. The “fishbowl” activity allows for all of those forces to come together. In other words it engenders learning!
I hope that you will feel free to share some of your interactive arts activities in the classroom with our readers.
Until next time,
It has been almost a year since I added information and articles to englishteachingwith creativity.ETC as I was completing my doctoral dissertation in Education and Curriculum Studies. It has been a challenging five years, working as a full-time high school teacher and mentor for English teachers and writing a dissertation. Now that I have completed the doctorate I seem to have a little more time to return to writing on this site and hope that you will also participate in the discussions that the articles elicit. This year I want to concentrate on Tips for Teaching in the classroom, which will help us develop strategies to better enhance our skills as facilitators of knowledge acquisition and mentors, which is what good educators do on a daily basis.
An interesting article by Liat Ben-David, CEO of the Wolf Foundation, in The Jerusalem Post (Monday December 5, 2016) entitled, “Vive la revolution!” speaks about redesigning our educational systems by asking a few fundamental questions which include; what is worthy of learning, who are our students and who are the teachers we need and when and how does learning/teaching take place? She argues that all of these answers should consider the development of what she terms the four arts which include knowledge arts, the identification and utilization of multi-disciplinary knowledge, thinking arts which includes problem solving, critical thinking, flexibility, creativity, innovation and risk taking, know-how arts, which includes design, craftsmanship, technical skills and practical experience and interaction arts, which involves curiosity, imagination, motivation, teamwork, activism and sustainability.
The answers to Ben-David’s questions are not necessarily difficult for us. As teachers of the English language we know that the ability to express oneself in English is a skill worthy of learning for the future success of our students. Our students are not just the pupils we meet in the classroom but all people with whom we come in contact in our work environments as well as those we communicate with in our on-line communities.
As for who are the teachers we need, it is us! We have chosen this profession because we believe in making a difference. We are passionate about learning, thinking and having a positive impact on the future. This means that we too must continue to learn if we want to impart our enthusiasm for learning to our students.
The final question, when and how does learning/teaching take place, is not the classic answer, learning takes place in school. Of course most of us are physically in the classroom; however, more and more we find ourselves communicating out of the school building as we work with students on-line and answer many questions in our WhatsApp groups which many of us have created with our classes. In addition, we recognize that much of what our students learn comes from the adventures we take them on out of the building, the volunteer work they do and the extra-curricular programs which take place during the year, including the holidays, when they are not in a formal school setting.
The Tips for Teaching articles will center on these four “arts” that Ben-David discusses in her article. I invite your input so that our community can benefit from many ideas and experiences. I am particularly involved with the “thinking arts” as I teach in a literature program that infuses higher order thinking skills (HOTS) into the lessons.
This week’s tip is about choosing a list of HOTS to introduce to your students and how to develop lessons that enable them to practice those HOTS. The list of HOTS which we teach in our high schools includes:
- Comparing and contrasting
- Distinguishing Different Perspectives
- Explaining Cause and Effect
- Generating Possibilities
- Identifying Parts and Whole
- Making Connections
- Problem Solving
- Uncovering Motives
There are many sources for definitions for these HOTS and it is important to give students written definitions; however, they are best learned when practiced. I found that one way to practice HOTS is to give students an activity to do collaboratively. One idea is called “The Marshmallow Challenge”. Each group is given:
- 20 pieces of uncooked spaghetti
- 1 meter of string
- 1 role of scotch tape and scissors
- 1 marshmallow
They have 15 minutes to build a free-standing structure with a marshmallow on top. They should try to make it as high as possible.
After completing the task, pictures are taken and then each group is asked to explain what HOTS they had to use to build this tower and explain how they used that HOTS. This activity works well with adults too although the younger you are the more risks you are willing to take in building this structure. Failure is an important part of learning and when you are willing to take risks and fail your chances of gaining knowledge are greater. Try this creative and fun activity when introducing HOTS to your students.