Inkheart in the classroom

          For our final unit plan, we have chosen to create a five-week novel study of Cornelia Funke’s Inkheart. Throughout the unit, we will be using Inkheart as a medium through which we will consolidate students’ prior knowledge of topics that range from short stories to poetry, address issues of bias and oppression, and analyze the power of language, narrative, and intertextuality. This unit allows students to move through the areas of reading, writing, communication, and media, with a strong emphasis on critical literacy and student-based learning.

 

          In addition to the novel Inkheart - the central text that will be used for this unit - we will explore a variety of poetry, flash fiction, and short stories. A few of the selected works that will be explored throughout the unit are: “Invitation” by Shel Silverstein, “How to Set a House on Fire” by Stace Budzko, “To Reduce Your Likelihood of Murder” by Ander Monson, “The Tale of the Three Brothers” by J.K. Rowling, and “Troll” by Shane Koyczan. Some of these materials might already be familiar to students. We believe that students should initially “practice critical-thinking skills with familiar material” as it creates a foundation of knowledge, which will “better [equip them] to tackle literature new to them and discover ideas they have never thought of before” (Evans 37). Thus, each piece was carefully selected for its strong thematic and linguistic elements, as well as its ability to demonstrate a web of interconnectivity.  In so doing, students can build the foundational critical literacy skills and knowledge that will serve them in later grades.

 

          In making this unit, we employed the principles of backwards design (Wiggins). We began by first identifying the grade and stream of our unit, after which we identified the curricular outcomes that we hoped to achieve. In order to create more accurate forms of evaluation, we decided on a temporal location for our unit within the course. We designed this unit to occur at the end of the course. The varieties of forms of evaluation allow us to assess the achievement of these outcomes, build upon prior knowledge, and encourage self-efficacy and a sense of accomplishment. We used the principles of backwards design as we believe that students must “link new material...to old material, with its familiar frames of relationships and purposes” as “without such linkages, they cannot approach the new with any sense of agency” (Kadjer 65).

 

            We have designed this unit for use in a Grade 10 Applied English class. While this unit could be adapted to suit any grade or level, the strong emphasis on the reading elements of the curriculum, narrative content, and creative and interactive assessment practices lend themselves to a junior grade. We acknowledge that Inkheart, although long, was written for a younger audience and while reading comprehension might not pose too great challenge to our students, the novel length may. During our practicum placements, we observed that the majority of high school students abhorred studies of canonical literature such as Lord of the Flies, Fifth Business, and The Great Gatsby. The assignment of such texts was often met with resistance or apathy. In response, we designed this unit to encourage students to “regard books as pleasant pastimes rather than as [an] intellectual obstacle course” (Nicol 26). We believe that “the literature we provide to our students should meet the interest needs of a teenaged audience” and fit into the “context in our students’ own worlds” (Nicol 24). Based on our experiences, canonical literature does not meet these criteria. However, we did not want our students to miss out on the experience of canonical texts altogether. Thus, due to its overt connections to canonical literature through the text’s epigraphs and its classification as popular fiction, we decided that Inkheart would be well suited to a high school classroom environment when paired with more challenging, supplementary material.

 

          Throughout the unit, Inkheart will act as our vehicle to introduce students to critical literacy, literary theory, poetry, debate, short stories, and creative writing. The teaching practices employed in this unit reflect critical literacy pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching. Presently, we believe that all learning is shaped by experience, that all students have the capacity to learn and engage with different forms of literature, that responsiveness to cultural differences is fundamental to effective teaching and learning, and that teachers must know students as well as content in order to determine how best to effectively convey the knowledge and skills to be learned. During our practicums, we noticed that creative and interactive assessment opportunities were readily welcomed by students. Therefore, armed with this knowledge, we have endeavoured to design a variety of activities to appeal to students with multiple intelligences. One such activity is the Final Project. We began with the notion that we wanted our final assignment for the unit to build on students’ “existing passions – for one another; for play; for music, movement, dialog, and drama; and for independence” (Myers 262). The Travelling Trunk assignment leaves room for interpretation and students are encouraged to be creative. If students love music, they are encouraged to incorporate it into their final assignment. In addition, the Travelling Trunk assignment allows “the students some choice in their reading selections,” which we hope will “expand their intellectual horizons and may offer them more motivation to, simply, read” (Sheaffer 26). Furthermore, the final assignment also creates the opportunity for students “to read and write for a larger audience [which we believe validates] them as literate, compassionate members of society” (Wagner 111).

 

          In order to create an engaging learning environment, we believe that “we must focus teaching and learning through the lens of a ‘new age’ by establishing a connection to our student’s experience” (Tabers-Kwak 69). We believe if we give our students the opportunities to use their own experience within the classroom, we will be able to engage and motivate them. Throughout our unit, we have attempted to craft activities that offer students multiple opportunities to make their own connections, to offer their own interpretations, and to give their own opinions. We want to encourage our students to make these connections because “self-efficacy and sense of accomplishment is increased when they [are] encouraged to make these connections between what they [know] already and what they [are] expected to learn” (Alvermann 11). For example, we have chosen to employ an unmoderated online forum, The Inkwell, and an online media blog, The Parchment Scroll, as mediums for students to express their own ideas and discuss their interpretations as “interpretations are much more meaningful when students are the ones attempting to persuade their peers” and not the teacher (Tabers-Kwak 72). We admit to growing up in an education system that placed little emphasis on technology. That being said, we acknowledge that there are security issues when students are unmoderated or conduct their learning online. In order to create a safe learning environment, we will use secure online platforms such as Google Classrooms, Google Documents, Prezi, and Kahoot! just to name a few. Furthermore, we will teach our students about source credibility and how to be a good online citizen. However, knowing that our students are “digital natives” and often feel more comfortable expressing their ideas and opinions through a digital medium, we acknowledge their expertise and their preference. As a result, we have tailored our unit plan to have information and communication technology in the majority of the lessons. That being said, we do not neglect traditional, “paper and pencil” activities such as an interactive intertextuality journal, exit cards, timed writing exercises, and content tests.

 

          Since anxiety, stress, or tension may hinder a student’s ability to learn, we believe that we can reduce learning anxieties and create positive learning experiences by providing students with a safe, supportive learning environment both in the classroom and online. To this effect, we will continually build community in the classroom and online. Moreover, we believe that when students have no fear of embarrassment or negative criticism, they will be more willing to participate and express their ideas. The collaborative debate activity has been scaffolded to foster this type of participation. We have included both a peer and self-evaluation to foster metacognition and classroom citizenship. It is our goal with this unit to create an environment in which students feel that they are respected, active participants in their educations.

 

          In English, there are two methods of learning: conceptual learning and procedural learning. Conceptual learning involves understanding the concepts instead of merely applying the rules. Traditionally, English has been taught using procedural learning: the rote application of rules and methods without any deeper understanding of the underlying concepts or theories, also known in student-speak as “Fake it until you make it”. We do not advocate for this method of learning; we believe it fosters a transmissional system of education that is detrimental to both teacher and student (Strickland). Consequently, we believe that both teachers and students should be aware of the “why” and “how” behind each theory or concept. Therefore, we see teachers not as “bank-clerks” that can choose when to distribute or withhold knowledge, but as “farmers” that encourage their fellow farmers (students) to “nurture their own seeds of knowledge” (Monchinski 119). Thus, we believe that conceptual learning provides the best framework from which we engage students and foster their active participation in their educations.

 

          If students struggle with language comprehension or communication, conceptual learning may be difficult. In fact, many students - not just culturally, ethnically, racially, and socially diverse students - are unable to translate academic language into a discourse of practicality, or to convert their social language into school discourse. As a result, students often feel isolated because “the subject matter of schooling is reduced to an ‘alienating intellectualism’” and “the things they learn in school and the ways they learn them [are] divorced from their everyday lives” (Monchinski 121). In order to make critical literacy and literary theory less “alienating,” we advocate for student-centered, inquiry-based learning in which students and teachers collaborate to develop a mutual understanding of the material through the use of open dialogue, group work, and culturally responsive activities. Although learning how to use critical literacy and literary theory is important, we believe it is equally, if not more, important for students to learn how to discuss literary concepts using the appropriate language, and how to use that language in a social context. As teachers, we believe we can help students improve their communication and understanding of concepts by providing them with multiple opportunities to engage with other students in culturally responsive group activities. We refuse to create a “culture of silence” in our classroom in which students are passive participants in their educations (Strickland).

 

          To encourage students to engage with the “alienating intellectualism” of critical literacy and literary theory, we plan to adapt our teaching methods through differentiated instruction and scaffolding. To ensure that diverse students can demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of these concepts, we will incorporate a variety of culturally responsive activities; use group structures that show diversity in race, gender, ability, and language; and connect what is taught to students’ lives and communities. For example, our lesson on intertextuality uses popular music relevant to our teenaged audience, such as “Love Story” by Taylor Swift and “Roar” by Katy Perry. We believe that “using music to stimulate imaginative thinking is a valid English class activity” (Sheaffer 68). Furthermore, we believe using pop culture references in the classroom “can help our students begin to view their learning as the result of interdisciplinary studies and discoveries rather than the result of narrow segments defined by separate departments” (Sheaffer 68).  We have also included culturally responsive lesson plans by incorporating FNMI based literature and histories into our lesson plans.  We agree with the concept that students are more willing to engage when their heritage or culture is represented in the texts they study; thus, we wove in Ojibwa legends and other Aboriginal cultures into our short story section of our unit.

 

          Finally, in response to these views, we have developed lessons that make the topics in the curriculum relevant to our students, since we believe that all students can be successful when their understanding of it is linked to meaningful cultural referents. For example, when developing essay questions, we will consider how students contextualize their thinking and processing style based on their lived experiences and collaboratively develop questions that are both interesting and engaging. For example, in our Unit Test and Content “Quest,” we will collaborate with our students to develop questions. To do this, we can draw upon questions posed on the online forum, The Inkwell. Students will be made aware that this is a possibility, as this will create a larger sense of investment in the online forum.

 

References

 

Alvermann, D. “Youth in the Middle: Our Guides to Improved Literacy Instruction?” Voices From the Middle 14.2 (2006): 7-13. Web.

 

Batchelor, K. & A. King. “Freshman and five hundred words: Investigating flash fiction as a genre for high school writing.” JAAL, 58.2 (2014): 111-121. Print.

 

Behrman, E.H. “Teaching about language, power and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy.” JAAL, 49.6 (2006): 490-499. Print.

 

Borsheim-Black , C., M. Macaluso, & R. Petrone. “Critical literature pedagogy: Teaching canonical literature for critical literacy.” JAAL, 58.2 (2014): 123-133. Print.

 

Day, J. “Of Mice and Media.” English Journal, 100.1 (2010): 70-75. Print.

 

Eckert, L. “Bridging the pedagogical gap: Intersections between literary and reading theories in secondary and post-secondary instruction.” JAAL, 52.2 (2008): 110-118. Print.

 

Evans, J. (2004). “From Sheryl Crow to Homer Simpson: Literature and Composition through Pop Culture.” English Journal, 93.3 (2004): 32-38. Print.

 

Isaac, M. ‘“I hate group work!’: Social loafers, indignant peers, and the drama of the classroom." English Journal 101.4 (2010): 83- 89. Print.

 

Kajder, S. "Enter here, personal narrative and digital story telling." English Journal, (2004)

 

Kist, W. “Basement new literacies: Dialogue with a first-year teacher.” English Journal, 97.1 (2007): 43-48. Print.

 

Monchinski, T. Critical Pedagogy and the Everyday Classroom. New York: Springer, 2008. 119-128. Web.

 

Myers, M. P. “Passion for poetry”. JAAL, 41.4 (1997). Print.

 

Nicol, J.C. “Questioning the Canon: Issues Surrounding the Selection of Literature for the High School English Curriculum.” English Quarterly, 38.2/3 (2008): 22-28. Print.

 

Sheaffer, L. (1992). “‘Music with her silver sound’: An introduction to Romeo and Juliet.” English Journal, 81.1 (1992): 68-71. Print.

 

Strickland, K. & J. Un-covering the curriculum: Whole language in secondary and postsecondary classrooms. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1993. Print.

 

Sweeny, S. "Writing for Instant messaging and text messaging." JAAL, (2010).

 

Tabers-Kwak, L. and Kaufman, T., U. “Shakespeare through the lens of a new age.” English Journal, 92.1 (2002): 69-73. Print.

 

Robertson, L., Hughes, J.M., & Smith, S. “‘Thanks for the Assignment!’: Digital Stories as a Form of Reflective Practice.” Language and Literacy, 14.1 (2012): 78-90. Print.

 

Wagner, Tracy. “Creating a Literate and Passionate Community”. The New Teacher Handbook. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools, 2010. 106-113. Web.

 

Wiggins, Grant P., and Jay McTighe. "Understanding by Design". Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998. Print.