Key Point: I think the work he does here gives a concrete way of thinking about how we want students to create depth in their writing through the way they structure their ideas, how they use parts of speech and literary devices to modify meaning, and how sentence structures modify and expand central ideas.
Be sure to look at the charts Noden has on pages 116-119. These are almost diagrams of how arguments are structured in terms of how ideas modify each other in a hierarchy of development.
Hypothesis: I think that the kind of depth TEA seeks on the rubric for STAAR writing implies, but never fully defines what depth looks like. If we can examine key texts (published authors) for how depth is created, I think we will find the same components in papers that score well for development.
Method: We'll examine a sentence from Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder" using the method described by Noden on page 115 and 116. Then we'll examine a paragraph from Steinbeck's "The Red Pony" as described by Noden on page 117-118. (I'll do this in a second post. This one is too long.) I'll lay out the sentences with images and then define what is going on in terms of modification and layers of depth.
"Each lower leg was a piston, a thousand pound of white bone, sunk in thick ropes of muscle sheathed over a gleam of pebbled skin like the mail of a terrible warrior" (Bradbury, 1968, 210).
Noden breaks it down into levels of depth like this:
Level 1: Each lower leg was a piston,
Level 2: a thousand pounds of white bone,
Level 3: sunk in thick ropes of muscle
Level 4: sheathed over a gleam of pebbled skin like the mail of a terrible warrior.
(Christensen calls this a subordinate sequence. Noden shared Figure 6-3, pg 115)
Note that each step modifies, or describes the level above it. It is a logical progression, leading you to a conclusion by showing you only a piece at a time. It's like Bradbury zooms in with an MRI to the bone and slowly pulls outward to the skin, leaving us with an image that builds from the inside to the outside. But I think there is more going on here that we can name for explicit focus.
It reminds me of what dyslexic kids need. Some kids will be fine without explicit instruction. But some kids need the direct phonics work to help them see what does not come naturally to them.
Check out the first level:
*The metaphor adds depth because it adds a nuanced meaning that can be interpreted by the reader.
We ask kids to write include specific literary devices in their writing. I've seen some rubrics that ask students to specifically include x number of brushstrokes, x number of similes. When I conference with kids about these elements, they are just sticking them in any ole place just to check that off the list of requirements. They are not doing any thinking about WHY they need to include that detail and what it does for the meaning they wish to convey. Meaningless drivel.
Now, I'm not sure what Bradbury is describing here. Doesn't really matter. In fact, it's probably better that way. He uses a metaphor to describe the leg. Why? A piston is a piece of an engine; a machine. Already, I see that whatever is being described here is massive, powerful, strong, fast and pressurized.
*The adjectives add depth because they tell which one and what kind about the central idea.
The adjectives are also modifying - adding depth. Which legs? The adjective tells me. It sends my mental eye to a specific place: down. That "each lower" leg is the piston emphasizes the image of the piston. I imagine them going up and down, knees rising, feet or hooves pounding.
Zoom in to the Focus of the Second Level
Notice that I have written "leg" on yellow and have circled it. This reminds me of Peter Elbow's strategy called Looping. Leg is the "center of grabbity" (sic.). The next level modifies, or references the leg.
*The next phrase "a thousand pounds of white bone points back to "leg."
Let's examine this further than the levels.
If we are to be very specific about zooming into the exact image, the focus is on "pounds." Bradbury continues the connection of describing the heft and weight of a machine first instead of the flesh.
* The image of "pounds" points back to, modifies, "leg."
But Bradbury goes deeper. He makes a connection back to the flesh. The prepositional phrase "of white bone" tells what kind of pounds are described. He reminds us that the focus of the image is on the contrast of how the flesh appears to be a machine but is really alive. This contrast emphasizes the central idea of the power of this living being.
*The prepositional adds depth by emphasizing the contrast, which is the central idea and purpose of the sentence.
Zoom into the focus of the third level:
*The next phrase, "sunk in thick ropes of muscle" tell where the "pounds" are located.
Notice that I used blue for pounds and muscle and then the same color for the next level phrase. This allows me to see the progression of depth and the levels that Noden labeled in his chart.
*Notice here that the phrase add depth in the same way as the previous phrase. It's a kind of rhetorical parallel structure. The phrase tells where and how about the pounds described in the previous level.
*The first prepositional phrase "in thick ropes" adds depth because it tells where the pounds are sunk. *The second prepositional phrase "of muscle" adds depth because it tells what kind of ropes and again emphasizes the contrast between living and nonliving.
The image created here emphasizes the nonliving aspect again. But it also creates the image of the living muscles ribbed and thickly twisted like multi-strand ropes, knowing that these cover the living pounds of pistons in the leg.
Zoom into the focus of the fourth level
*This phrase, "sheathed over a gleam of pebbled skin" deepens the image by extending the verb of "sunk" that tells how and where about the bone to the verb "sheathed" that brings the image back to the leg.
*The prepositional phrases parallel the structure again by emphasizing the mechanical first and then modifying it with the physical. "Of pebbled skin" explains the previous prepositional object "gleam."
*The prepositional phrase, "over a gleam" adds depth by pointing to where and to what is "sheathed." "Of pebbled skin" adds depth because it tells what kind of gleam is achieved.
Zoom into the Fifth Level:
Noden kept the levels at four. But look what happens here. The simile is used as an additional phrase that modifies the gleam of the skin. Notice the use of colors to indicate the connection.
*The simile is an embedded layer of meaning and depth because the entire phrase modifies the "gleam" and "skin." In addition, the contrast between the mechanical and the physical continues with "mail" and "warrior."
*The simile modifies, adds depth to, "gleam" by making a comparison.
Bradbury didn't stick that in there because he had a checklist. He wrote it to leave you with a powerful image that clearly shows the impact of his central focus.
Zoom Out to See the Depth:
*THIS is what I think TEA means by one kind of depth. Note: There are many different constructions. This is just one: the subordinate sequence. Nobody needs to memorize that term, per say, any more than we need to memorize parts of speech. But we DO need to be able to name and describe what the words are doing in terms of communicating meaning.
I think the critical thing to do with students here is to NAME what it is each level is doing to help create meaning...especially the nuanced, well-crafted meaning they must deconstruct in their reading and the well-developed pieces they must compose to convey their ideas effectively. For this sentence, I would try to help students name the ideas that I have marked with an asterisk * under each image. I would also focus on what those constructions did in conveying the overall message.
WHY did Bradbury do this?
*Bradury's focus and central image for each section emphasizes the mechanical first and then connects to the contrasting physical image. He does this for a reason: to show the reader that the leg is powerful rather than telling the reader that the leg is powerful.
In the same way, we tell kids to write with depth. But how do we show them what that looks like?
Do you agree that Noden is on to something here that we need to look at more closely?
Share your thinking. Share what your kids think. Seriously. In the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment