Every now and then, a student will challenge me to a chess game with much braggadocio and bravado.
"I'm going to beat you so bad, Mr. Scott!" comes the claim. "You don't stand a chance."
My response is usually simple: "Perhaps." There are plenty of thirteen-year-old chess players in the world (probably in the county) who could, indeed, thrash me. When facing an opponent for the first time, I prefer humility. Usually.
What I was thinking, though, was anything but humble: "Perhaps. But remember, young one, I have worked with you for quite some time now. I know how you think. I know your critical thinking abilities. I know how much patience you have (or in this case, don't have). I know how easily (or not) you make connections between seemingly disparate passages of the text. I know how well you infer. Very strong chess players do all these things better than the average person; you do most of these at about an average (or even below average) level. Also, to beat me, you'll need to know chess theory better than I do, which requires study and focus -- two things you don't always excel at. Therefore, taking all of this into consideration, it's highly unlikely that you will beat me."
Now, thinking all these things, I often just play along with the trash talk: "Buddy, I'm going to kick you so hard your grandmother is going to feel it." The most brutal trash talk I do is when, after a couple of moves, I just give the player my queen. "I won't be needing that." Among those who have a basic understanding of chess, this always elicits hoots and laughs. One student might run over to someone not watching the game and recount excitedly what I just did.
I thought about that today as students in my last period class struggled mightily with making claims for an argumentative writing assignment with which we're concluding the semester. I thought I'd set everything up perfectly for them to see some connections that would lead to good claims. We were annotating the text for things illustrating the narrator's family's poverty and the acts of kindness they perform and in turn receive. I made sure students saw two passages:
- We were one of the last families to leave because Papa felt obligated to stay until the rancher’s cotton had all been picked, even though other farmers had better crops. Papa thought it was the right thing to do; after all, the rancher had let us live in his cabin free while we worked for him.
- She made up a story and told the butcher the bones were for the dog. The butcher must have known the bones were for us and not for the dog because he left more and more pieces of meat on the bones each time Mama went back.
Here we have two acts of kindness that directly contribute to the family's survival. Yet none of the students could make the connections and inferences necessary to come up with a simple claim about this: "The family receives basic needs from the actions of others."
The co-teacher in the class, seeing the same problem, started searching online for some sentence stems to help them with their claims. When working with struggling students, sentence stems (also known as frames) help students orient their thinking and direct their writing.
"Since claims can be so varied," I told her, "I doubt you'll find much." She's a great special education teacher and a real advocate for all students: she didn't give up. Still, she found nothing.
"I just don't know how to teach these kids such basic critical thinking skills," I said. I've tried logic puzzles and similar ideas, but I'm just not good at that. I feel that's teaching skills (inferring, categorizing, comparing/contrasting) that most kids have learned years ago. It's something an elementary teacher would be trained to teach. Not someone who studied secondary education.
It's from classes like this that the "I'm going to beat you badly!" chess claims emerge. One such kid kept bragging while I set up pieces, and he put his class materials away. He sat down across from me and said, "Okay, so how do you play this game?"
