The Uncreative "Creative Drama in the Classroom"
356724
There have to be much more creative, interesting books on Creative Drama in the Classroom.  I don't know why they keep revising this book.
1863953
This leading and innovative educator has fallen short in this effort.  Paley talks about the courage to create a classroom where a the children can't say "No" to someone else playing.  Unfortunately for the reader, what should have been an excellent published article was needlessly stretched into a full-length book.  In order to make it even remotely long enough to be a book, Paley includes a story, which hits the reader over the head with the parallels to the "real" events of Paley's classroom.

Don't waste your time reading this book, instead know that if you are a teacher perhaps you should institute a "you can't say you can't play" attitude in your classroom.
2004600
I purchased the teacher's guide to the Art of Poetry based on the recommendation of a homeschooling friend of mine, and now wish that I had not spent the money.  The index to the poems is buried somewhere about 2/3 of the way through the book, and every time I wanted to find a poem, I was frustrated by searching for the index.  (For a long time I thought there was no index.  Perhaps the index should be in the Table of Contents.- which does not list any poems or authors.)  This Poetry book claims to be a a tool for those teaching classically; however, its presentation is pretentious and very, very much in the manner of traditional schools-  dry and rambling!  Ok, the poems included would pass any parent's test of innocuous and safe, but the divisions are artificial-  the fact that a poem might possibly overlap between symbolism, metaphor, and rhythm is never addressed.  The artificial grouping is frustrating and gives an overall effect of "putting on airs."

This book has all the appearance of  a "pretender".  More space is spent on questions, analysis, and ways in which to  organize one's Poetry club-  which, by the way, if one doesn't have a Poetry Club, he obviously does not belong to the "intelligent" class of poetry appreciating elites for whom this book PURPORTS to be intended.  The irony is that few who truly enjoy poetry would purchase this book -  even as a teaching tool.  The actual intended audience is clearly the "pretenders," - those who like to surround themselves with people who have a literary background, yet have not a clue about how to actually enjoy poetry themselves. The selection of poems is hardly representative and very, very small in relation to the size of the book.  None of the poems are remotely entertaining- "funny", which by itself let's the reader know immediately that poetry is not for the average individual but for those who prefer to cogitate  or to meditate or to impress their peers with their depth of intelligence and understanding.

How can this "poetry" book claim to be for lovers of poetry?  Those who truly LOVE to read poetry would much prefer a dog eared volume with a rich and varied selection of respectable, beautiful, entertaining, thought provoking poems.

Unfortunately, this  tome  is a "Teacher's Manual."  for those who haven't a clue about how to study poetry, let alone teach poetry to others,  yet the teacher who wades through the poorly organized 313 page encumbrance  and spends hours reading the pages of analysis for one small poem is not very likely to captivate his students.  Ms.  Perrin should have offered a CLASS on how to appreciate and teach poetry and spent more page space on more  poems!
4434774
I had two major problems suspending disbelief about Tracy Chevaliers updating of The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice: (1) that a teacher would assign a girl to the task of cluing in a new boy to a school and (2) that the oversize passions and jealousies of Shakespeares play could exist among six graders over the course of one school day. I was assigned the task of familiarizing a boy who transferred into the school in which I moved (eastward) form kindergarten to high school, and cant believe a teacher would ask a girl to do this, though girls know where the boys rest rooms are, etc. And that the boy is black (the son of a diplomat in the Ghana Embassy in D.C.) in a heretofore all-white school makes it even harder to believe that Dee (christened Daniela) would be asked to clue in Osei (who suggests calling him O).

(And, within the Hogarth Shakespeare modernization series, I think that Margaret Atwood's Hag-Seed is more entertaining and illuminates the original rather than just updating to the present-day  it in prose.)

That the whole story is compressed into one school day makes it even more difficult to credit sixth graders with the passions of Othello and Desdemona. The malice of a preteen Iago, herein named Ian, is easier to credit, as is the manipulability of his confederate (Roderigo turned Roger). Still, the dating and rating complex is easier to believe for high school students (in the 2001 movie O, filmed in Charleston, South Carolia, with Mekhi Phifer in the title role, Julie Stiles as Desi, and Josh Hartnett as Iago, renamed Hugo).

Author Tracy Chevalier was born in October 1962 in D.C. and went to school (high school at least) in Bethesda, Maryland, so seems to have drawn on her own school daze for a novel about sixth-graders in the last month of the 1973-74 school year in a Washington suburban school. Given her (dubious!) choice of putting the story into sixth grade, I think Chevalier crafted the adaptation well, finding a credible substitute for the scarf in the original, and making the reactions of fellow students, as well as teachers and principal, to de facto desegregation plausible. Racism in much more central to Chevaliers version than to the original.

Though I don't really believe it, I admire Chevaliers cramming the story of passions, manipulations, perceived betrayals, and violence into the course of a few hours. I think that sixth graders could read the novel. Im not sure Id accuse it of being written down for young readers, though it definitely lacks the grandeur of Shakespeares language.
835693
Graves goes on about scaring the student with such phrases as "plunging immediatley into frantic production of your own thing."  The entire book is a number tricks. I don't object to "tricks" if the ends result in  a good drawing. The first rule of art is ; there no rules. I agree with many of Graves' didactic, time tested academic step by step progress. However what I see here is not unlike many of the popular TV how to draw/paint....Like ME. In fact Graves' drawings are rather poor. His concepts about tone and form are sound. My fear is that is that want of the student to advance in there truest of artforms; the charcoal drawing. It is the purest of all medium. The art of drawing is the most important vehicle to which the artist can move on to painting, printmaking etc.; not that that is even important. A good drawing can stand alone and equal to any painting. If you really wish to draw well I would suggest "The Natural way to Draw" which is also very exercize driven and only people who truly want to draw well will follow this regimine. Nicholides does not present his own work as an example of how to draw; but rather chooses to present and challenge the student to work and work hard. I believe this a better way in which to convey the principles of draughtsmanship.
751398
I know what you might be thinking while reading this review. Why is this guy trashing this authors perfectly valid attempt at conveying an educational concept through engaging literature? Ill tell you why. This book is the least engaging literary work I have ever had the misfortune of reading. Dont get me wrong; I understand the authors intention. Instead of writing a dry textbook or journal article, the author thought it would be neat to demonstrate the ideas presented in this book through a fictional story with dialogue between characters who learn as the reader learns. Does it work?

Well, on one hand the idea of the critical chain and related project management concepts are explained in some detail. So, we do learn quite a bit. The author isn't too shabby at getting across the idea he wants to convey, which is great. The problem lies in the literary aspect of the book.

This book commits numerous literary crimes. Ill list a few of these below:

 Shallow, one-dimensional characters whose sole purpose is to talk about project management. This is supposed to be a work of fiction, so youd think there would be some hint of character development. Nope, nothing like that here.
 Cringeworthy dialogue which leaves the reader wondering, Who on earth talks like this? The word cringeworthy is an understatement. Some of the dialogue between the one-dimensional characters is so bad that there were certain points where I burst out laughing. One of the most notable moments was on pages 74-76 where the author attempts to pigeonhole some kind of emotional subplot involving the main character and his wife as they struggle in life while the professor continues his quest for tenure at the business school where he works. Considering how little I cared for any of the characters thanks to their absolute lack of depth, I could do nothing else but laugh at this pitiful attempt at adding some element of drama into the plot.
 Jumping back and forth between first person and third person omniscient perspectives. This was the most egregious crime of them all. In one chapter, were experiencing the story through the eyes of Rick, the main character. Then, in another chapter, all of a sudden, we jump to a third person omniscient perspective where we experience conversations between the business schools administrative personnel. Umm, what?? Whose story is this? If you wanted to present the business schools struggles as a way of exemplifying the ideas being talked about by the main character, just pick third person and stick with it. All the jumping back and forth makes it unclear who this book is supposed to be about.
 Adverbs. So many adverbs. Literary great Stephen King once said, I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. If Stephen King read this book, he would have a brain aneurysm. The heavy use of adverbs in this book makes it clear the author has no idea how to paint a picture with words.

If I wasn't required to read this for my business schools project management course, I would have steered clear of this book. I suggest you do the same. Just read a boring old textbook instead. Its way better and won't make you cringe as hard as I did.
1336221
I was not surprised in the least by the myriad contrivances that dominate this book. Miss Catton has spent her life in creative writing classes of one sort or another and the result is this 800-plus page instrument of torture that is as pretentious as it is soulless. There is a marked absence of authenticty that charcterises genuine works of literature. Don't believe the hype: as John Keats said, if poetry (or talent) does not come as naturally as water, it had better not come at all. So watch this space: the future of books is grim indeed if its fate is to be dictated by those who believe they can acquire in a classroom what other, better authors have acquired via natural talent and from life.
2462321
Anyone studying the demise of pedagogy in the modern era could conceivably scrape some benefit from the barnacled hull of this immensely ugly and poorly coordinated excuse for a textbook; unfortunately, most of its users will be unwitting students, whose native enthusiasm for the subtle music and expressive rigor of the English language will be sorely beleaguered by this leaden-spirited assault on the natural fluidity of thought and word.

Note well that this is a book that may have "users" but not "readers," since it is ultimately unreadable: while it is credited to two authors (who acknowledge many more), it utterly lacks a distinctive and coordinating authorial voice--an absence that is mirrored by its layout, which is a riot of ocular insult that seems to have been conceived in total ignorance of the fundamentals of intelligible layout and typography.

In personal expression, such a lack of coherent authority is a simple token of weakness; but in a textbook designed to instruct, the absence is as fatal as setting off on a sea voyage in an ill-provisioned canoe with no navigational equipment.

Sadly (and predictably), the authors' lack of attention to the basic exposition of their subject is complemented by a superstructure of irrelevant sociological preachment and innuendo that adds a note of Stalinist coercion to the proceedings: at every turn, what should be straightforward and responsible grammatical exercises are warped into an endless cycle of variations on the theme of Political Correctness.  This tendency receives continual support from an equally inexhaustible reservoir of false and viscid references to popular culture that can only sicken the healthy soul with their patronizing fakeness.

In short, this is an Orwellian nightmare that no caring teacher should inflict on his students, and no thinking school board should approve: Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
4763063
I am a music teacher.  Thought this would be great to show in a group setting.  It is not very engaging, drags, and is way too long to keep the attention of even older students.
4722196
"Language and Learning in the Digital Age" by James Paul Gee and Elisabeth R. Hayes. Routledge, 2011; paperback. 159 pp.

For readers hoping to find a scientific appraisal of the affect of digital media on language and learning, this is not the place to look.

The sequence of chapter titles: Language; Literacy; Language and Interaction; New Kinds of People and Relationships; Literacy and Interpretation; School; School and Passionate Affinity Spaces; Play and Theory Crafting; Cats, Passion and Expertise; The Return of the Amateur and the New Capitalism; Words, Images and Experiences; Three Social Formations, and Multitasking, Diversity and Commonality all provide the flavor of an educationist treatment of a very serious problem.

In science, we expect concepts to be carefully defined.  While there is a minimal amount of valuable discussion about language being multimodal and a narrow definition of literacy, it is difficult to find much that is more than speculation and in most cases, futurism.

If a reader wants to know the science behind reading and the implications of new technology, then Gordon Legge's "Psychophysics of Reading in Normal and Low Vision" is a deep and authoritative place to start.

To those who appreciate the importance of expertise and intellectual depth, this book's positive discussion of amateurism and "wisdom of the crowd" is embarrassing. Indeed, the polemic "The Cult of the Amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today's user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values" has as much logic as can be found here. Indeed the discussion of science found on pages 51-53 is constructivist and would hardly be recognized by practicing scientists today.

"Passionate affinity spaces" are the "new out-of-school learning systems." Unfortunately, the few examples given of any positive value are exceptions to the normal and widespread use of digital media. There is no mention of the massive boy problem--the huge numbers of videogame-addicted  males who have diverted from schooling at an early age, leaving our university classrooms mostly populated by females (let me make it clear I consider the success of women students to be good). Nor is there mention of the FTC report finding 19 out of 27 virtual online worlds to contain sexually or violently explicit content. Or that "scrolling negatively affects learning from text...," a 2009 study in Human Factors that should have been part of this book's discussion. Where is any discussion of "students denied social media go through withdrawal"--also an earlier study?  The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project has been pouring out data showing dramatic use of cell phones by teens and tweens and subsequent educational problems. The Pew "Generation M3" research shows that if kids are awake, they are probably on electronics. Other concerns due to the new digital media (and documented in research literature) include copying homework, procrastination, increased hearing loss, a decline in student creativity, and much more. ---But not discussed here.

Frank Smith's "The Book of Learning and Forgetting," written over a decade ago, but anticipating the very consequences we face today, discusses language learning in detail and predicts the onslaught of digital media, and cites solid research that still applies even if the media are not high definition.
4844674
Although the words art and music come before PE, this author has no experience teaching art or music. The title is clearly meant to be a marketing tool, and since there are very few books out there that address art teaching, it suckered me in. What is contained in this book, if you are an experienced teacher, is not new  - mostly basic common sense. Also, it assumes "once a week" meeting with students and in this day and age that rarely happens. Secondary art, music and pe classes meet daily, and few elementary schools still have consistent offerings of at least art and music. For someone who has not been in the classroom yet and has not read much classroom management literature, it might be useful, but there are no specific methods relating to the unique problems that art and music teachers face with our use of materials and instruments.
3318751
I'm forced to use this book by my English department to teach the second half of Freshman comp. Here are a few of my issues with this book:

*I disagree with the basic premise of the book. A book about argumentation that argues that everything IS an argument should at least be able to make some good points about how everything's an argument. I'm not convinced. The authors fail at what they're trying to teach.
*It is not written at an appropriate level for Freshman Comp students, especially at the community college level.
*The organization is odd in places. For example, chapter 2 is titled "Arguments Based on Emotion: Pathos." Chapters 3-4 cover the other Aristotelian Appeals, logos and ethos. Chapter 5 is titled "Fallacies of Argument." Chapter 6 is titled "Rhetorical Analysis" and has a subsection titled "Examining Arguments Based on Character: Ethos." This organizational structure makes little sense to me.
*The focus is too narrow. God help you if you don't like reading essays, because that's all the included readings are. Some of them are not, in my opinion, very good essays, and the majority aren't engaging to college students.
*The book has very little about the nuts and bolts of writing, which is what Freshman Comp. students need. The bulk of the book is spent on breaking down definitions of different types of arguments. It doesn't cover topics like pre-writing, drafting, and revising, or other topics that are common to composition books.
This book might be okay for a rhetoric class, but it does not work well at all for composition.
447157
I was disappointed by this book for two reasons. First, I already agree with Wagner about the purpose and process of education, as I wrote in my book, Engage! Second, he makes the classic error of equating correlating factor with causative ones.

The book is comprised of summaries of interviews with people and their parents or teachers that helped them to be who they are, that is, different, innovative, creative.  It all seems so self-evident: standardized testing squelches creativity; play means that enjoyment is taking place and if learning is associated with play, that connection will persist; play can lead to passion and purpose.  This book should be read in conjunction with Jungian psychotherapist James Hillman's The Soul's Code. Hillman states emphatically that the presence of eccentrics and outliers in a child's life (think Auntie Mame) is very helpful to children's development.  But, did these parents and teachers have any real bearing or were they just part of the soul's unfolding?

This is a delightful idea:  "They took an evidence-based, trial-and-error approach to parenting . . .moving them through a buffet of opportunities." Another parent urges, "Then trust in your child - in his or her unique interests and talents, in the hunger to learn and create, and in the innate drive to realize one's full potential.  It also requires a reconsideration of your authority as a parent.  This is no longer a 'father knows best' world.  What limits to set; when to say no versus letting a child decide; when to protect versus let go; when to push the homework versus when to support learning out of school; when to trust a child's 'wisdom' versus your 'better judgment' as an adult - all these are decision that successful parents of young innovators struggle with daily."  Yes! By all means, these are considerations.

Let's recognize, however, that passion does not alight in all children and that a child without particular interests is not defective. Sometimes it takes decades for passion to settle in a soul. Some prospective hosts never open the door and don't want to or aren't meant to. Each of us has a different journey and a virtuous life that follows a tried and true path can be just as fulfilling as one that hacks with a machete at forging a new path through the jungle.
3273166
I use laughter in my classroom. I struggle bringing students back from the laughter and keeping the students from going to far, that is keeping them from crossing the line between fun and chaos. I was hoping to see ideas and strategies in this book that would help me with these issues. I didn't find what I wanted. Instead, the book is filled with gimmicks to make students laugh. It isn't bad, but it isn't what I was hoping for. I'll try some of the gimmicks, but most of the ideas weren't in line with my style. I don't feel that this book was worth the time I devoted to it.
2523107
I always have this disconcerting bafflement and not a little bit of annoyance whenever I teach my "Comedy Unit #1" to my sophomore English students.  I wrap my "Comedy Unit" in a cloak of pseudo-science so that I can watch funny stuff while being able to justify it to the administration (should they walk in when I am showing a clip from "Young Frankenstein").  I make the students write a definition essay at the end, "What is Comedy?" as part of our state curriculum requirements. Anyway........we study the various types of comedy: slapstick, parody,satire, scatological, etc.  Then as an example of a movie that incorporates almost every type of comedy, I show "Monty Python and the..."  I still find it hilarious and as I watch it over and over again, I am struck anew each time when I see how smart it is.  Here's my question:  I see each year that the smarter the kid the harder they laugh.  I don't mean to sound elitist but my honors classes hoot and holler.  My "general" students, who are proud of having read "a" book in middle school, sometimes laugh at the slapstick and then there are a significant number who mutter the whole time, "This is so stupid, why are we watching this? This is stupid....and so on." I start to get fed up after the first two mutters because:  1) They could be deconstructing *War and Peace* if I was in a really bad mood and  2) I love this movie.  I warn them ahead of time that they might not "get" all of the satire (peasant/king political debate) but how can you resist a line about a moist bit throwing scimitars at you  or a watery tart etc.  This movie is very, very smart and very, very funny.  Anyway, I propose we throw out the traditional IQ test and show this to high schoolers to assess their intelligence or at least intellectual potential.  How can you not love this movie?  Someone please tell me how to respond to those unfortunates who "don't get it".
3471054
Child abuse is a very emotional subject, and the author did a good job exploiting that emotion. However, instead of being educational in any way, the author turns the focus to high school parties and gossip and soft porn. By soft porn I mean she gives descriptions of sexual feelings and tension without crassly describing actual sex.

I felt uncomfortable reading this book. Teen sex, high school drama, and a complete lack of plot resolution characterized this book. I was tempted to buy the next book in the series, hoping for something more positive, but have decided not to after reading other reviews. Apparently, while things change somewhat, nothing actually improves.

I can handle intense subjects and appreciate education about problems in society that need more attention and support, but this author's effort is only a pretense, a front for high school drama and teen sex (unfulfilled as it might have been, but not for lack of trying). I do not recommend this book or series.
954957
Although there were a couple of two star reviews, there were more strongly positive reviews so I thought to try this with my 4-6 grade students in special education.  First, I have to address the drawings in this book.  While I understand that the drawings were simple for the probable saving of time, they were completely racially stereotypical and innacurate, and I took offense to that, especially knowing that many of my students would take note of that (ex. Asians with slanted lines for eyes and names such as Ping, and African American students with big lips and noses).  Plus the activities were just too simple, with little room for discussion and growth.  While the book is for "special children", they can still have good discussions and come up with own scenarios and do not need answers so clearly obvious.  There are just too many items to tackle in this book and nothing is gone into with any depth.  I just could not see myself using anything in this, so in fact sent it back.  I am glad for the many who were able to make this work for them so easily.  I am just not one of them.