I taught a class last week about unpredictable endings and students peeled their faces off of facebook long enough to appear engaged. It involved reading half of an essay about a fire fighter caught in a wildfire, pausing to act out possible endings, and then comparing student endings to the author's ending. Bruce Schauble's post lit this spark for me about walking students through the writer's decision-making processes.Step 1: Using their laptops in small groups, I asked them to find 1) an image and 2) an explanation of the following vocabulary words. We live in Hawaii so they don't know much about fires and the visuals got them excited about the topic.
Fire shelter, wildfire fighter, Army Huey, firestorm, Lewis and Clark National Forest.
Briefly, we went over their findings together.
Step 2: I photocopied a story about fighting wildfires. It was written by a college student at U of Idaho who I have never met and probably won't until she sues me for pasting her piece on the internet without permission; (Linda Lilly, wherever you are, your essay was perfect for this exercise because you yourself are a developing writer, so your moves are easier to notice--thank you!)
I broke the story into 3 parts on 3 different sheets of paper and gave them only the first section to read aloud.
"The pea-green helicopter sailed through the morning air over spans of roadless forest. It was a sweltering July morning, and the breeze in the open-air chopper was exhilarating. I sat sideways in the Army Huey with nothing but a seatbelt between me and the sky. We were in the Lewis and Clark National Forest near near White Sulphur Springs, a part of Montana that was new to me. From the air, I could see rolling hills, spotted with large grassy meadows here and there breaking up the thickly timbered terrain. Facing north, the only evidence of the fire raging behind us was the gray haze suspended around the peaks and blanketing the valleys. The crew yawned and joked over the copter's racket. John, our crew boss, strained to study the terrain, sizing up the day's assignment. We veered to the south and circled back for a landing. Dense smoke filled the sky. I could make out charred slopes and occasional trees lit at the top like candles. An intense fire front appeared to be moving our way. The fire had already consumed five thousand acres.
We piled noisily out of the helicopter and greeted Larry, our division boss. As one of three squad bosses, I was responsible for five Forest Service firefighters. I patted my pockets, web belt, and butt pack to make sure I hadn't left any of my paraphernalia on the chopper. Assessing the situation, John and Larry decided to take a closer look at the fire heading in our direction. Not more than five minutes later, we heard John's voice on the radio: Larry, this is too big and it's moving fast. Let's get out of here."Ten-four: I'll radio for release," Larry responded. While waiting anxiously for them to return, we kept an eye on the monstrous blaze that was approaching. When he got back, Larry breathlessly told us he had requested a chopper. As we waited, we could hear the sounds of bursting trees and popping needles becoming louder. Finally the chopper pilot came over the radio: "Too much smoke and wind to land. Better locate and escape route." For a moment, everyone was silent. I could hear my heart pounding in my chest."
Step 3: We talked through each line and the author's decision-making process. Why did she start with that line? Was it a good line to start with? Why? Because helicopters are interesting. Because the helicopter does something interesting (sailing). Because she began with action.
Why did the author use the verb 'sweltering' in the second line instead of saying it was a 'clear' or 'bright' morning? Why does the third line end with 'sky'? She could have written "Nothing between me and the sky but a seatbelt." What is the effect of ending a sentence with 'sky' vs. 'seatbelt'?
They did well with this because the questions are about concrete decisions rather than abstract inferences. It was teacher-directed discussion, true, but they were engaged. If I hadn't tried to use the handouts in three sections I could have allowed them to annotate the piece as we discussed the writers decisions--ah next time.
Step 4: "You have five minutes to make a 1-minute skit." In their pre-established groups of 3 or 4, students decided what would happen next in the story.
Most acted out fairly predictable endings: heroine zips herself into a fire shelter and immerges unscathed; heroine zips herself into a fire shelter and roasts like a hot dog; heroine runs to a clearing and flags down a helicopter etc. Some students created less predictable, more interesting endings: emergency SUV's zoom in through the fire, scoop up our heroine and scoot off; ice caps begin falling from the sky and heroine looses a toe to frostbite; fires encroach at the exact moment of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks and heroine uses an airplane to stop the two simultaneous fire threats.
Discussion cropped up about likely endings vs. unlikely (but possible!) endings vs. fantastical/ impossible endings. If you stop half way through your own essay, do you imagine the reader could predict the end of your story? If so, what are your options to re-capture their attention?
Step 5: Read Lilly's ending aloud.
(not in the mood to type it out right now)
Classes like this go so well--students involved, interesting writing, cool discussion--and then I catch myself wondering...is this still just teaching 1.0? ie. students acting as a passive group who I bestow knowledge upon or does this lesson allow for student-led learning?
