Dr. K. Shimabukuro

Dr. K. Shimabukuro

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Daybooks, Regular Reflection, Transparency in the Classroom, and Creating Open Spaces.

When I first started teaching in Brooklyn (in 2001), one of the first professional developments I attended was on Ralph Fletcher's A Writer's NotebookI tried, sort of, to integrate it into my classroom, but as a brand new teacher, with a lot else going on, I was totally and completely unsuccessful. While I was unable to integrate it into my classroom, I was totally sold on using it myself.
I've always been a writer- short stories, bad poetry, letters. As a youngster I kept journals. Often destroyed. Often hidden in shame. Things I poured my heart into, and often later regretted. Often seeming like mental hamster wheels, never going anywhere.

So the idea of a purposeful writer's notebook intrigued me.
Something that was part journal in that it was personal reflections and writings, but was less about complaining.
Something that was part scrapbook, with ticket stubs, clippings, images, and my written responses to these things.
Something that encouraged layers, going back, layering Post-Its, revisiting ideas, seeing things with new eyes.

Since then, I have religiously kept writer's notebooks.
Here is my pile.
Sixteen years of experiences.
I'm currently on book #27.
All kinds- spiral notebooks are great because they hold the bulge of scrapbookey things better. But I'm also a sucker for pretty journals. Lined. Unlined. Composition books. I decorate covers- stickers, comments, glitter pens.
Some books I fill every page. Some I discard three-fourths through.
Some pages are filled, then layered and layered in Post-Its and revisits.
Some pages have a single line, never to be revisited again.
I like that the focus is more on reflection and interaction, and less about getting into (and not recovering from) downward spirals. I LOVE the scrapbook aspect. I love the layering aspect, the time I take to go back through pages, revisiting, reflecting, adding Post-Its with current thoughts. I like that all my writing is in one spot. I keep reflections on bills and budget, article ideas, ideas for blogs, images I like, movie ticket stubs, wish lists, all in one spot.

At the end of last semester, I looked at my list of what wasn't working in my classes (English 11 American Literature, English 10 Global Literature, and AP Language and Composition), to see what changes I needed to make. My classes are yearlong, so I had to think about things to fix to benefit my kids this semester.

I think it was a decade ago when I first was introduced to the idea of interactive notebooks.   I used them in part because they dovetailed with the AVID strategies I used- the students had everything in one spot, it taught and modeled how to take notes and be organized, and it encouraged out of the box responses, what my kids came to call arts and crafts.
I always kept the same notebook the kids did, so they had a model, and so, if they were absent they could come look at mine to see what they missed.
The last few years I migrated/duplicated my interactive notebooks to Google Slides.  This made the material more accessible to students, both in class and when absent. It was also what I projected in my class. The students learned to check the board, it provided a routine, and a template.

All these are good things. But there were several issues. In my school, 50% of our students are below the poverty line. We are a mostly Chican@ and Native population. My students have smart phones, but have to ride the school wifi. They have stories to tell, but have often been passed along, with below grade level reading and writing skills. Many are bilingual. Their parents are dedicated, invested, but also often overworked, trying to juggle a lot of responsibilities. All of these things impact engagement, how well they can comprehend reading material, and what skills they have and don't.

I wanted to provide a model, but what I noticed was instead of using the model to do their own thing, think their own thoughts, write their own responses, they spent the whole time copying my model. Their notebooks were full of unannotated excerpts, copies of my questions, but no answers. No notes. In my AP classes, the fact that they weren't taking notes, prepping for reading discussions was obvious in their low essay grades, the lack of skill development, the lack of improvement. All issues I also saw in my regular English classes.
I wanted my students to learn to love reading, the exploration, the new worlds that I loved, but I couldn't get them to read on their own.
I wanted to introduce them to texts in class that they could make real world connections to, learn how to analyze, and they could relate to. But we ended up spending all our time trying to get through things, and I felt we were racing through and not getting to anything, not really covering anything.
My grades are evenly distributed- notebooks, projects, writing, tests, are all 25% with the idea that not everyone does everything well, and that shouldn't tank anyone. We also do almost all the work in class. We also have fewer assignments, because we spend more time on them. But this meant that if students didn't DO this work, it's disastrous.

I wanted to do better.
So I started to think of all these things, what I was seeing in my classroom, what I wanted to improve. And I started to research some different ideas.

The first day of class, 2 January, I handed the students letters that explained what we were doing and why (AP classes, English 11 and 10). I showed them a presentation that covered some of the same info as the letters but had example pictures too. We spent the rest of the day setting up our notebooks. We decorated them with stickers, washi tape, glitter.

I began with the idea of transforming my interactive notebooks to daybooks, or commonplace books. The students would still keep everything in one spot, but the limits, the rigidity went away.
I also moved from SWBAT (students will be able to) learning objectives to learning targets. And we go over these "I can..." statements in class, we've shifted the focus to what the students can do, and what they maybe can't do...yet. These provide easily accessible, attainable, goals for class. They know exactly what they need to do.
My Google Slides also have a lot less on them. We do more with less, which has become a watchword for me.
I've also given up the stress of covering whole works. Don't get me wrong, I want my students to read all of Heart of Darkness. But also think my students are getting more out of close reading, discussing, annotating, the first few pages of each part together, as a class, with Native students willingly sharing ideas of colonialism, and us discussing how this is still seen in world events. Now, in class we do this, using this time to see the opening of chapters and parts as mentor texts, and only AFTER I think they've gotten the skills do I set them loose to read the rest of the chapter and part (as far as they can get) looking for the skills/items we covered.

Here's what I've noticed in two weeks:

  • 1st period is English 11. This class has always had an issue with tardies- our students are dependent on others to get to school, yet we penalize students who are late, assigning penalties that range from lunch detention to suspension. In addition to this, students miss instruction. Now we read the first 15 minutes of class. Some students are still late, and they're missing reading. But they're no longer missing instruction.
  • All of my students are now laser locked on their reading. Totally engaged. They can read anything, I don't care- phones, comics, books from my room. They just have to read then write a response. No other aim, no essay, no project. And they love it. 
    • I am disappointed that I get really excited about that day's reading gif, and they apparently are unimpressed :-)
    • K-12 schools have issues with this type of open space. The time doing "nothing." If it can't be explicitly tied to a Common Core State Standard (and hence state testing) it's not worth doing. I struggle with this the most as a high school teacher. There are lots of things that are valuable, worth doing, reading, experiencing, that you'll never find in standards. The problem is, we've evaluated not on our teaching, but how well we conform to an evaluation rubric. But I'll take the hit on this one.
  • In their notebooks, students still made a title page, a table of contents. They still numbered their pages. But now, I give them less. We focus on answering questions, not copying them. They can put art class doodles, history notes, anything they want in them. I encourage them to make these connections. They have a section labelled independent reading, big ideas, and index. They read every class, it's now how we start class, and record pages read and some sort of response, any response, their choice. They keep ongoing notes in the index and big ideas section. Some kids take 3 pages of notes in one class, some barely one. They take what they need.
  • I graded their notebooks for the first time this past week. I sat at their tables (another change- they've always sat in groups, but now they have to leave one chair empty for me so I can easily become part of the conversation) and asked them to do just one thing- show me the one page that they thought showed their best work in the last week. What the students chose to show me told me a lot, as much as the work. Now the notebooks are 20 points each week, times 5 weeks (we have 6 week marking periods). 
    • The notebooks used to be graded holistically at the end of the marking period, and the biggest issue was copying, not original work, and lots and lots of blank pages which always brought their grade down. It ended up being a meaningless grade in many instances that rewarded compliance, not the work or the thoughts or the process.
    • In addition to grading, as they talked, shared the discussion of the day, I jotted down cool ideas, things they focused on in my notebook (I still keep a model).
  •  Students aren't copying my questions, they're answering them. They're writing more, taking more notes, pages and pages. Of their own volition.
  • Students are more engaged. Participating in discussions, their notebooks, their reading. They're not zoned out, checking out, not paying attention. They are present.

My English 11 and 10 classes are still focusing on what stories don't get told, who the hidden figures are, and I like that as our overarching theme. American lit this marking period is focusing on the American Dream- how it is and isn't accessible to people, the differences through time. English 10 is focusing on war and trauma, specifically colonialism and the Holocaust, which most of my students say they've never studied. Sadly, current events have made these topics very relevant, and those are issues we're discussing in class, the importance of having these conversations, knowing these stories. My AP students are revisiting the synthesis essay through The Jungle read in conjunction with Fast Food Nation, and they're all really connecting with the idea of the immigrant experience, how little it has changed since then, for their experience, and how not much has changed for the most vulnerable.
My AP students were totally prepared for class this past Tuesday, despite the fact that they had to read 115 pages in a week, due, in large part because of the dialectical journal I modeled for them, that almost all of them completed.

So I'm super happy with the results so far.

It is a lot of work. It's a lot of monitoring, and while I'm keeping my notebook, I'll admit that in some cases, I'm printing the Google Slide, then adding notes, to save copying/busy work. I'm more tired after a 725a-225p day, because it's ON all day long. But I can't argue with the results I've seen.

I think this worked for a couple of reasons. The first I think is the letter. I was clear with students (and parents in my weekly email) about what I was doing and WHY. What I hoped to fix, make better. I also admitted the things I wanted to do, that I had failed on. The examples, both the images of all they could do, and my own notebook, helped them to think outside of the box on what a notebook could be.

I also think this worked BECAUSE of the open space. It's not all planned. It's rough sketched. I am able because of my content knowledge to suddenly make a connection, give them extra notes, put an organizer on the board. But these are ephemeral things. I don't plan them, and the board is erased after class. The kids don't mind- they're getting what they need. But again, K-12 teaching does not reward these types of flexibilities, in fact, they often punish them. But the thing is, I often don't know what my students need- a sample sentence, an extra model, an image, an organizer, until we're in class and I can SEE what they need. And I give it to them, but that's not a thing that gets rewarded, so I may get dinged on this on evaluations. But again, I'll take the hit, because it's these open spaces in class that I think are having the biggest impact. And frankly, as a doctor, it's my biggest strength that I can DO these things.

I'm not sure how the rest of the year will go. Sometimes enthusiasm for new things is not sustainable. But I'm excited. I think these are foundational changes, and so I think they'll stick.

I'll let you know.
In the meantime, I encourage you to reflect on what's working, what's not, what changes you can make, how you can better serve your students, how you can be transparent about those changes, and how opening your classes to and for your students can improve their learning experience.

Have a great story about daybooks, reflection, transparency, and open spaces to share?

Sunday, January 7, 2018

My English Devil Hypothesis

When I first started thinking about my research topic, way back in 2010, three years before I started my PhD program, I started with a very simple question- Where did Milton's portrayal of Satan come from?

It struck me that Satan's "likability" was unique and since popular culture embraces Milton's portrayal as the "accepted" version of the devil- a human like man who is clever, likable, seductive, tricky, I was interested in where Milton got this from.

At first glance, Milton appears to pull together a lot of different aspects and traits.
But my research has revealed that his portrayal is not as unique as first blush would suggest.

My first round of research revealed that in English literature, portrayals of the devil can be grouped according to several different traits, both physical traits and character traits. He is almost always dark in color, shown with animal traits (claws, bat wings, a tail, dark fur, horns). This darkness serves several purposes. Like Cain's mark, it serves to mark the devil as different to others, as a threat. The darkness is also earned, a mark of his pride which led to his fall. Markov's  scholarship reveals how this appearance functions as visual rhetoric- serving to warn others of the threat the devil presents, and his unnatural state.
The Junius Manuscript (c. 1000) is one of the first images to show this. The devil, as he tempts Adam and Eve is not the completely dark figure he becomes, but the foundation is there. His wings and head covering are dark.

The Guthlac roll (c. 1000) shows an easily recognized set of devils. They are dark in color, animalistic, and have the caricatured noses that later are used in both portrayals of devils and Jews (as seen in the Exchequer Roll (1233).


The elves in the Eadwine Psalter (12th century) also share similarities with portrayals of devils.


There is both a clear evolution of the visual portrayal of the devil in English texts and a consistency, from roughly 1000 C.E up through the early modern period.





















The chapter I'm adding to the book that wasn't in the dissertation analyzes how the visual rhetoric of the devil is used for political purposes in pamphlets during the English Civil War (1642-1649), and how these same images are recycled, with the same rhetorical function, in pamphlets during The Glorious Revolution (1688). One of the reasons I argue that the image of the devil is used is BECAUSE it is familiar, consistent, and the meaning easily understood by the audience/reader. The image of the devil functions as a narrative shorthand.

But as with Milton's presentation of Satan, the visual appearance of the English devil is different from the visual appearance of other European devils. For example, look at this image from The Livre de la vigne nostre seigneur (1450-1470).
These devils are colorful, their body parts (as Markov's visual rhetoric shows) mark them as unnatural, with different pieces seemingly tacked on.

After years of researching this, I can tell you just by looking what is an English based devil and whether or not the devil comes from other European sources.

But back to my origin interest.
My final dissertation ended up not really addressing any of the rhetoric that images presented. In fact, the physical appearance of the devil is not really focused on. But I can't seem to let go of it. I've written before that I hope to turn the initial dissertation research, the survey work, into an encyclopedia-type resource webpage on the devil.

But this image origin is slightly tangential work.
And I haven't done the research yet. But I'm going to tell you my hypothesis that I hope to research.

My first thought, in 2010, was that the qualities of Milton's Satan that seemed unique from other devil portrayals, was his cleverness, his trickster spirit. These are not traits in the Biblical sources. So where did this come from? The first thing that is reminded me of was Loki, who in Norse mythology is clever, a trickster, and (perhaps most importantly for me) served a specific function, not good or evil but providing balance, as the Adversary does in the Book of Job.

Here's where the hypothesis comes in, because this becomes based on folklore, which is notoriously hard to pin down origins for. But I will tell you what I believe.
In the last few years, popular culture has taken the once obscure figure of Krampus, and made him into a Christmas bogeyman, a mainstay of funny holiday cards and horror films.  The portrayal most people know now, is that as an anti-Santa Claus. While St. Nicholas delivers gifts and sweets to reward good children, Krampus steals bad children away and eats them.
Krampus is paired with St. Nicholas during the seventeenth-century but the images most people would recognize with his revival in popularity, like the one above, dates from the 1800s. The roots of St. Nicholas are during the time of Constantine (280-337) so Krampus as counter has an earlier foundation.

But Krampus is also a figure in Norse mythology where he is often understood as the son of Hel. And appears much like you see above- a dark, animalistic figure.
My hypothesis is that the English devil's foundation is in Norse mythology. The trickster character traits of Loki and the appearance of Krampus.

I believe that the Norse brought this mythology over with them, first introduced in the ninth and tenth centuries.

The Danelaw was established by the eleventh-century.

Now, and here's the research still to do, so bear with me about the hypothesis.
I want to look at the monasteries that produced images and descriptions of the English devil, and overlay them over the monasteries situated in the Danelaw. I want to then compare this to other portrayals in monasteries not associated with the Danelaw.
Does my hypothesis hold up?
Do manuscripts produced in the Danelaw produce and confirm this dark, animalistic, trickster, portrayal of the devil?
Do monasteries that produce these manuscripts have a larger circulation or production that accounts for the popularity and dissemination of this understanding?
What monasteries or manuscripts counter this portrayal of the devil? Why? For what reasons? Are visual portrayals that DON'T follow the common understandings evidence of outside influence?
Is it possible to trace the dissemination of a manuscript, to trace the path of this English devil?

I know this is a huge project. And it may not be possible to prove any of it. The closest I may get is to mimic Karen Jolly's methodology, and make an argument for a single manuscript from a single monastery, and try and make larger arguments based on that information.

With the foundation of oral folklore, the transmission of Norse mythology, it's hard to find a starting point. There are few if any medieval images of Krampus (the manuscript doodle above a rarity). So textual foundations are hard.
But all of my research the last seven years points to a consistent, recognizable, understanding of the devil from the medieval period, up through the early modern period and beyond.

(Harley_ms_1526_f021r)
 (Royal 19 C I, fol. 203v, © The British Library)
(The Taymouth Hours, British Library, Yates Thompson fol.)

I know literary scholars don't generally think in hypothesis. We rarely present ideas, questions, possible beginnings. The danger is that you then only find the data that supports your initial hypothesis.
I understand that. If my research proves me wrong, I think the work, the methodology, the research is still valuable. It possible, although I think not probable, that the common understanding of the devil, is a coincidence.
We'll see.
But I think the adventure will be fun!