They Just Don't Get It - 1/14/2002

Some reflections here on what teaching lower has been like for the past two weeks. This entry is really prompted by the fact that "they just don't get it"

Me: "Ok so we're studying literary devices today. These terms that we're using are just fancy pants names for what we already know. (with heavy irony) We do this so we can keep literature the preserve of an elite and so that no one will understand what literature students are talking about ..."
Them: Blank
Me: "Ok so we're studying metaphors because poets use metaphors. (with more heavy irony) Poets are very deep and broody people who have a lot to say about life that can't be understood by ordinary people ...
Them: Blank
Me: "Ok so I'm going to read out similes. As slow as a snail - hey that's so boring - everyone's got "as slow as a snail" - can't you all be more original ...
Them: Blank

You know, I used to think that humour was an important tool in the classroom not only for the building of rapport but also so the kids get interested in the subject by realising it isn't as dry and heavy going as it seems. I still think it is there's nothing like a good dose of sarcasm to get at the kids or a nice amount of irony to dig at the flaws in institutionalised thought. I think one of the tragedies of our educational system is that we don't take humour seriously enough (oxymoron?) Why don't we have the comedy club for a CCA? We should - sometimes the agenda could be to review different stand-up comedians, rank the effectiveness of different kinds of jokes, do physcial comedy, work on one-liners, trade jokes, think up silly pranks ... all very creative stuff.

Problem: we want not "chaotic creativity" but creativity that can be used. So we delineate the boundaries and assign "good creativity" vs. "bad creativity". Where does this stuff come from anyway? Ok- I'll admit that I have my reservations about pushing the envelop on this one but hey I'm willing to give it a go. If someone excels at making a total clown of themselves surely there's a theoretician who can formalise the psychological and pedagogical benefits. Instead we straight-jacket. One size fits all.

I think a true measure of intelligence is the ability to laugh at stuff. One- it shows you get it. Two - it shows you're smart enough not to take things too seriously. Three - it shows (if you're the only one laughing) you trust your own judgement more than the influence of others. Four - it's an intuitive kind of intelligence that's very hard to quickly develop or mug up for.

Hmmm maybe they'll give me a National Day Award for thinking up a new O levels subject: Humour in English (Chinese humour remains inaccessible for now - even when it's explained I don't actually get it)

Possible essay questions: Discuss the development of British sitcom humour versus American sitcom humour from the mid 1980s.

Possible structured questions: The follwing clips will cause you to laugh. Your laughter will be recorded and marked for a)appropriateness b)length and tone c) consistency. (NB Not all clips are meant to be laughed at, so don't feel compelled.

Possible MCQs: Which of the following is the most funny?
a. A teacher
b. A teacher telling a joke
c. A teacher telling a joke that doesn't work
d. Students that don't laugh at teachers' jokes

OR

Which of the following is the least funny?
a. A teacher
b. A teacher telling a joke
c. A teacher telling a joke that doesn't work
d. Students that don't laugh at teachers' jokes

Quote/incident of the day (which I thought was awfully funny because it demonstrated the thorough lack of self-awareness of the speaker who probably didn't think twice about making the remark and because the student population obliged/indulged that unawareness so graciously [yah right! they probably didn't get ti themselves]): "Mrs L just spoke for a short while and she got applause. I wonder what I'll get after I talk to you (massive applause for the student population erupts)"

I laugh to myself - and i don't think I am the only one.