Misinformation
I recently spent a few days as a substitute at the middle school level, which, among other things, reaffirmed my deep dislike of teaching those in middle school. Actually, that isn't exactly true. I love teaching everybody. I hate trying to teach those in middle school. Some have a knack for it. Some do not. I am definitely in the latter camp.
During this time, I watched another teacher do the teaching while I merely assisted. The class was discussing an author's purpose for writing, and the teacher led the discussion something like this:
Teacher: "What are the two major types of genres of books?"
Student(s): "Fiction and nonfiction."
T: "Right. And how can you tell them apart?"
S: "Nonfiction contains facts, and fiction is made up."
T: "Correct! What is the author's purpose for writing nonfiction?"
S: "To inform, or educate."
T: "And for fiction?"
S: "To entertain."
T: "Exactly!"
The next day she went on to tell the class that an author can have three purposes: to inform, to entertain, or to persuade, but there was no more reference to the genres.
I spent most of the three hours during which this lesson was taught (three separate times), dumbfounded. Had I really just watched a teacher tell 11-12 year olds that fiction is for entertainment and that nonfiction is for education? The implication, at least, how I took it and, I am sure, many of the students took it, is that fiction is only for entertainment, and that nonfiction is only for education. Which means that I can't learn from fiction, and I can't be entertained by nonfiction.
Now, I have no problem with understanding that nonfiction is generally informative. And I realise that much of the body of fiction is entertaining. But I have learned so much from reading that I am baffled by the implication given here! Some of the all-time favourites in literature are works of fiction. And some of the most entertaining books I have ever read have been nonfiction. (I dare you to read through "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" and not be entertained!)
There are some people who believe that you have to tell students something that is not all together accurate to help them understand something basic first. Kind of a "milk before meat" concept. The problem, though, is that misinforming students is not giving them milk before meat. It is giving them powdered milk and telling them that there is no meat.
The best example of this happening is when early childhood teachers present the concept of subtracting. They will often tell students that they cannot subtract a bigger number from a smaller number. Those of us who have made it past the first grade know that negatives exist and they make the number line, and the concept of numbers in general, make so much more sense! But rather than get students bogged down in thinking of negatives, we have teachers who deny the existence thereof.
Fortunately, not all teachers do this. A great mentor of mine would simply say, "Well, yes, you can do that, but that is second grade math, and we are in first grade." And the students actually understood that they had to master one concept before learning the next. Rather than saying that the purpose of fiction in one thing, and the purpose of nonfiction is another, I would insert a simple qualifier: generally. Fiction is generally written to entertain, and nonfiction is generally written to inform, but there are times that we are informed by fiction and entertained by nonfiction. And both can be persuasive.
This experience has helped me shape my theory of why so many kids hate school. It isn't that they hate learning. And it isn't that they hate being in school. It is that they hate being told one thing, and then being told something completely different. The concept of "school" becomes the symbol of a confusing jumble of contradictions and misinformation. No wonder a young man in one of my classes cried out, "I hate reading, I hate learning, and I hate school! I just want to go home and play my video games all day!"
Of course, I tried to explain to him that playing video games requires you to learn, and that, since he claimed to have beaten all of his games, then he is obviously very good at learning. Alas, sixth graders apparently don't think of mindless entertainment as a multi-faceted educative process. Too bad.
During this time, I watched another teacher do the teaching while I merely assisted. The class was discussing an author's purpose for writing, and the teacher led the discussion something like this:
Teacher: "What are the two major types of genres of books?"
Student(s): "Fiction and nonfiction."
T: "Right. And how can you tell them apart?"
S: "Nonfiction contains facts, and fiction is made up."
T: "Correct! What is the author's purpose for writing nonfiction?"
S: "To inform, or educate."
T: "And for fiction?"
S: "To entertain."
T: "Exactly!"
The next day she went on to tell the class that an author can have three purposes: to inform, to entertain, or to persuade, but there was no more reference to the genres.
I spent most of the three hours during which this lesson was taught (three separate times), dumbfounded. Had I really just watched a teacher tell 11-12 year olds that fiction is for entertainment and that nonfiction is for education? The implication, at least, how I took it and, I am sure, many of the students took it, is that fiction is only for entertainment, and that nonfiction is only for education. Which means that I can't learn from fiction, and I can't be entertained by nonfiction.
Now, I have no problem with understanding that nonfiction is generally informative. And I realise that much of the body of fiction is entertaining. But I have learned so much from reading that I am baffled by the implication given here! Some of the all-time favourites in literature are works of fiction. And some of the most entertaining books I have ever read have been nonfiction. (I dare you to read through "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" and not be entertained!)
There are some people who believe that you have to tell students something that is not all together accurate to help them understand something basic first. Kind of a "milk before meat" concept. The problem, though, is that misinforming students is not giving them milk before meat. It is giving them powdered milk and telling them that there is no meat.
The best example of this happening is when early childhood teachers present the concept of subtracting. They will often tell students that they cannot subtract a bigger number from a smaller number. Those of us who have made it past the first grade know that negatives exist and they make the number line, and the concept of numbers in general, make so much more sense! But rather than get students bogged down in thinking of negatives, we have teachers who deny the existence thereof.
Fortunately, not all teachers do this. A great mentor of mine would simply say, "Well, yes, you can do that, but that is second grade math, and we are in first grade." And the students actually understood that they had to master one concept before learning the next. Rather than saying that the purpose of fiction in one thing, and the purpose of nonfiction is another, I would insert a simple qualifier: generally. Fiction is generally written to entertain, and nonfiction is generally written to inform, but there are times that we are informed by fiction and entertained by nonfiction. And both can be persuasive.
This experience has helped me shape my theory of why so many kids hate school. It isn't that they hate learning. And it isn't that they hate being in school. It is that they hate being told one thing, and then being told something completely different. The concept of "school" becomes the symbol of a confusing jumble of contradictions and misinformation. No wonder a young man in one of my classes cried out, "I hate reading, I hate learning, and I hate school! I just want to go home and play my video games all day!"
Of course, I tried to explain to him that playing video games requires you to learn, and that, since he claimed to have beaten all of his games, then he is obviously very good at learning. Alas, sixth graders apparently don't think of mindless entertainment as a multi-faceted educative process. Too bad.
Comments