Before we are allowed to start reading, we must listen to a PowerPoint in which the book is explained. The plot, the main character, the context, the terms, the setting; none of these are allowed to be discovered ourselves. The context I’ll grant her, but she could have explained the relevant history in five minutes. Instead we must be told what it is that we are supposed to understand from the book, as we cannot be trusted to pick up on the terms by ourselves. I understand that some of it might be confusing for students to read if they aren’t familiar with the book already, but 1984′s hobby of introducing new terms and settings (worldbuilding) isn’t an art highschoolers are incapable of understanding. People here have read The Hunger Games, or Divergent, or whatever other YA fiction is popular these days. They understand it, even when it talks about things that don’t exist in our life (District 13, the factions).
We are instructed to take notes as we read. It’s implied that these things will be on tests, that we will be asked to define the Newspeak terms and the plot elements. I imagine that that’s how they teach Newspeak to children in Oceania, too. Just because we read something in a class doesn’t mean that everything has to be memorized; when you ask students to remember what happens in books, and to recite the themes when prompted, you get SparkNotes, which serves as the answer key for this class. The teacher intends for you to understand the underlying themes. You’re supposed to understand the application of the concepts, and not just the pages of the textbook it was on. Yet, teachers optimize for what can be easily tested.
She begins to read the first chapter aloud. She pauses, at times, to explain the implications of what we read. “What do you notice about the names of the four Ministries?”, she asks. “They’re too nice?” a student responds. At least there’s student participation. She could have just lectured for the whole class.
But, then again, it could be that much worse. I mock how we start the book, but we’re doing a game for the entire grade to try to get us to understand 1984. People will get to roleplay as Thought Police, or Party members, or proles. When I asked the teacher, one-on-one, whether I’d enjoy the game, she said I would. Do I trust that? Somewhat. So, they’re trying.
There’s a post waiting to be written about the simulations/wargames that we played at my old school as part of history class. I think that those types of wargames are enjoyable, and that they teach more than whatever else the teacher would do. Yet, I fear that if word came down from the School Board, telling teachers that wargames are the new way to teach, more effective than anything else, it wouldn’t end well. From where I sit at the bottom of the authority food chain, I’ve seen dozens of well-intentioned interventions and regulations meant to help students learn, and almost none of them have any of the effect than the regulators expected. Part of this is due to teacher incompetence/apathy; part of this is due to simply miscommunicated intentions.
The saddest thing about this is that these students, these people with the potential to be legitimately creative and do so much more than they’re asked to do here, are being taught to see 1984 as their English textbook, in the sense that they must regard 1984 as the source for the questions on the test, and little else. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had to write essays on symbolism or themes. We’ve done this for Lord of the Flies and Macbeth so far this year. It’s horrible.
Once you realize that school is required to be accessible to the 25th percentile of curiosity and cognitive ability, this will bother you less. It’s not there for you, it’s not targeted toward your learning ability. Do your time, get good at learning and exploring OUTSIDE the lesson plans, with the syllabus as only a checklist in case you missed something years ago. Learn to fake paying attention while you read or think about more interesting things—that’s a really useful skill in a whole lot of situations. Find some friends with similar interests and levels of ability, and do directed and un-directed study with them. There are exceptions for particularly great teachers, and for many honors and AP classes—take all of those you can handle.
I’d read 1984 long before it was assigned as part of class, and honestly I’d missed some stuff that class brought up, and found value in some of the study materials (not enough to justify the amount of time spent, but non-zero).
Teaching 1984
Before we are allowed to start reading, we must listen to a PowerPoint in which the book is explained. The plot, the main character, the context, the terms, the setting; none of these are allowed to be discovered ourselves. The context I’ll grant her, but she could have explained the relevant history in five minutes. Instead we must be told what it is that we are supposed to understand from the book, as we cannot be trusted to pick up on the terms by ourselves. I understand that some of it might be confusing for students to read if they aren’t familiar with the book already, but 1984′s hobby of introducing new terms and settings (worldbuilding) isn’t an art highschoolers are incapable of understanding. People here have read The Hunger Games, or Divergent, or whatever other YA fiction is popular these days. They understand it, even when it talks about things that don’t exist in our life (District 13, the factions).
We are instructed to take notes as we read. It’s implied that these things will be on tests, that we will be asked to define the Newspeak terms and the plot elements. I imagine that that’s how they teach Newspeak to children in Oceania, too. Just because we read something in a class doesn’t mean that everything has to be memorized; when you ask students to remember what happens in books, and to recite the themes when prompted, you get SparkNotes, which serves as the answer key for this class. The teacher intends for you to understand the underlying themes. You’re supposed to understand the application of the concepts, and not just the pages of the textbook it was on. Yet, teachers optimize for what can be easily tested.
She begins to read the first chapter aloud. She pauses, at times, to explain the implications of what we read. “What do you notice about the names of the four Ministries?”, she asks. “They’re too nice?” a student responds. At least there’s student participation. She could have just lectured for the whole class.
But, then again, it could be that much worse. I mock how we start the book, but we’re doing a game for the entire grade to try to get us to understand 1984. People will get to roleplay as Thought Police, or Party members, or proles. When I asked the teacher, one-on-one, whether I’d enjoy the game, she said I would. Do I trust that? Somewhat. So, they’re trying.
There’s a post waiting to be written about the simulations/wargames that we played at my old school as part of history class. I think that those types of wargames are enjoyable, and that they teach more than whatever else the teacher would do. Yet, I fear that if word came down from the School Board, telling teachers that wargames are the new way to teach, more effective than anything else, it wouldn’t end well. From where I sit at the bottom of the authority food chain, I’ve seen dozens of well-intentioned interventions and regulations meant to help students learn, and almost none of them have any of the effect than the regulators expected. Part of this is due to teacher incompetence/apathy; part of this is due to simply miscommunicated intentions.
The saddest thing about this is that these students, these people with the potential to be legitimately creative and do so much more than they’re asked to do here, are being taught to see 1984 as their English textbook, in the sense that they must regard 1984 as the source for the questions on the test, and little else. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had to write essays on symbolism or themes. We’ve done this for Lord of the Flies and Macbeth so far this year. It’s horrible.
Get us out of here.
Once you realize that school is required to be accessible to the 25th percentile of curiosity and cognitive ability, this will bother you less. It’s not there for you, it’s not targeted toward your learning ability. Do your time, get good at learning and exploring OUTSIDE the lesson plans, with the syllabus as only a checklist in case you missed something years ago. Learn to fake paying attention while you read or think about more interesting things—that’s a really useful skill in a whole lot of situations. Find some friends with similar interests and levels of ability, and do directed and un-directed study with them. There are exceptions for particularly great teachers, and for many honors and AP classes—take all of those you can handle.
I’d read 1984 long before it was assigned as part of class, and honestly I’d missed some stuff that class brought up, and found value in some of the study materials (not enough to justify the amount of time spent, but non-zero).