Thursday, November 20, 2003
BLOOM'S TAXONOMY: I HAVE CONQUERED YOU THIS DAY
Another happy highlight of my teaching career occurred this week. We have been studying Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica"- a somewhat confusing poem that depicts, in his opinion, all the things that make good poetry. The students have been struggling with wrapping their brains around somewhat complex concepts shrouded in ambiguous poetic stanzas- each clouded with what appears to be contradictions. Anyone who has ever read "Ars Poetica" will no doubt agree that it is not easy on the brain, the first two-three times through.
For example, the first few lines of the poem read as follows:
" A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit.
Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb."
I explained to my students that MacLeish is saying that good poetry is classic, ageless and will evoke familiar images and feelings in anyone who reads it(them). We discussed that same theme in lines # 7 + 8 of the poem:
"A poem should be wordless
As the flight of birds"
I explained how we have all seen a flight of birds- it doesn't matter if you've lived your whole life in China, or Australia- we have all witnessed this event. Then I asked the class to tell me what kinds of things came to mind when trying to describe a flight of birds. Everyone said relatively the same thing: it's graceful, it's synchronized, it's awe-inspiring. After we discussed this, I brought them back to the purpose of the poem and reminded them of what MacLeish says: good poetry is so classic (motionless in time)that you don't need a lot of words to make your point (as a flight of birds), or speak your mind. Good poetry (think Shakespeare)- allows imagery, metaphors, similes and other poetic devices to do the talking for you. People from different walks of life, with differing life experiences will connect with it- if you stick to using vivid and effective poetic devices.
To that end, a poem is dumb- it needs no words (although we have to use words - see, I told you the poem was kinda contradictory). In addition, the poem is also familiar. Think of the Olympic athlete, who, having won a very important race or event touches his/her medal(s) fondly("dumb, as old medallions to the thumb"), recollecting that priceless moment of victory. Years later, that Olympian will be able to recall the exact feel of the medallion when placed about his neck and shoulders, the exact emotion he/she experienced winning it. This is how good poetry should be- like an event or item or smell or sound or picture that brings about a feeling of familiarity. A Polariod snapshot of evocative experience.
A few days later, after I had quizzed them on the poem (24 lines!) we turned to another poem: "Silver" by Walter de la Mare. In the poem, the moon is personified as a woman, who walks silently and slowly around the earth, gazing on life below her, turning all things living and inanimate into silver (the moonlight). I asked the class: "why did de la Mare choose the color for the moon? Would gold have worked in the poem?" We all agreed that, "no", gold would not suffice.
On the board, we wrote two columns to prove why the color "gold" would not have been fitting for the poem. One column we used to describe what we think of when we think of the word "gold" and "golden". The other column we used to describe what we think of when we think of the world "silver." The class responded by saying (in summation) that the word "gold" evokes thoughts of warmth and sunlight. And they even went so far as to say they ascribe masculinity to the sun. They contrasted this with the word "silver", saying that the word "silver" conjured up images of ice, winter, frozen, and that the moon had a feminine quality to it.
WOW! I was floored. Am I really teaching 9th grade?
Then I asked them to go back to "Ars Poetica" and to tell me if the poem "Silver" could be considered good poetry in light of MacLeish's guidelines. We agreed that, indeed, the poem "Silver" was classic.
Why? Because we all (most students in the class) felt the same things about the sun, the moon, and the words "gold" and "silver." I pointed out that we had probably never discussed with ANYONE our thoughts about these words or spherical objects, but we all still had the same feelings about them. Is that cool or what? ("Dumb - As old medallions to the thumb")
The zenith of my teaching career occurred when I looked around the class, each period of the day and saw smiles on their faces. They get it. They see the connections between a very complex piece of poetry, and understand how to interpret it's meaning. Not only that- they can compare it to another poem and analyze each poem's effective use of poetic devices....
Agh! It's just too much! I can barely type this out- my excitement knows no end.
Bloom's Taxonomy: I have conquered you this day!
Another happy highlight of my teaching career occurred this week. We have been studying Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica"- a somewhat confusing poem that depicts, in his opinion, all the things that make good poetry. The students have been struggling with wrapping their brains around somewhat complex concepts shrouded in ambiguous poetic stanzas- each clouded with what appears to be contradictions. Anyone who has ever read "Ars Poetica" will no doubt agree that it is not easy on the brain, the first two-three times through.
For example, the first few lines of the poem read as follows:
" A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit.
Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb."
I explained to my students that MacLeish is saying that good poetry is classic, ageless and will evoke familiar images and feelings in anyone who reads it(them). We discussed that same theme in lines # 7 + 8 of the poem:
"A poem should be wordless
As the flight of birds"
I explained how we have all seen a flight of birds- it doesn't matter if you've lived your whole life in China, or Australia- we have all witnessed this event. Then I asked the class to tell me what kinds of things came to mind when trying to describe a flight of birds. Everyone said relatively the same thing: it's graceful, it's synchronized, it's awe-inspiring. After we discussed this, I brought them back to the purpose of the poem and reminded them of what MacLeish says: good poetry is so classic (motionless in time)that you don't need a lot of words to make your point (as a flight of birds), or speak your mind. Good poetry (think Shakespeare)- allows imagery, metaphors, similes and other poetic devices to do the talking for you. People from different walks of life, with differing life experiences will connect with it- if you stick to using vivid and effective poetic devices.
To that end, a poem is dumb- it needs no words (although we have to use words - see, I told you the poem was kinda contradictory). In addition, the poem is also familiar. Think of the Olympic athlete, who, having won a very important race or event touches his/her medal(s) fondly("dumb, as old medallions to the thumb"), recollecting that priceless moment of victory. Years later, that Olympian will be able to recall the exact feel of the medallion when placed about his neck and shoulders, the exact emotion he/she experienced winning it. This is how good poetry should be- like an event or item or smell or sound or picture that brings about a feeling of familiarity. A Polariod snapshot of evocative experience.
A few days later, after I had quizzed them on the poem (24 lines!) we turned to another poem: "Silver" by Walter de la Mare. In the poem, the moon is personified as a woman, who walks silently and slowly around the earth, gazing on life below her, turning all things living and inanimate into silver (the moonlight). I asked the class: "why did de la Mare choose the color for the moon? Would gold have worked in the poem?" We all agreed that, "no", gold would not suffice.
On the board, we wrote two columns to prove why the color "gold" would not have been fitting for the poem. One column we used to describe what we think of when we think of the word "gold" and "golden". The other column we used to describe what we think of when we think of the world "silver." The class responded by saying (in summation) that the word "gold" evokes thoughts of warmth and sunlight. And they even went so far as to say they ascribe masculinity to the sun. They contrasted this with the word "silver", saying that the word "silver" conjured up images of ice, winter, frozen, and that the moon had a feminine quality to it.
WOW! I was floored. Am I really teaching 9th grade?
Then I asked them to go back to "Ars Poetica" and to tell me if the poem "Silver" could be considered good poetry in light of MacLeish's guidelines. We agreed that, indeed, the poem "Silver" was classic.
Why? Because we all (most students in the class) felt the same things about the sun, the moon, and the words "gold" and "silver." I pointed out that we had probably never discussed with ANYONE our thoughts about these words or spherical objects, but we all still had the same feelings about them. Is that cool or what? ("Dumb - As old medallions to the thumb")
The zenith of my teaching career occurred when I looked around the class, each period of the day and saw smiles on their faces. They get it. They see the connections between a very complex piece of poetry, and understand how to interpret it's meaning. Not only that- they can compare it to another poem and analyze each poem's effective use of poetic devices....
Agh! It's just too much! I can barely type this out- my excitement knows no end.
Bloom's Taxonomy: I have conquered you this day!
Comments:
Post a Comment
