Communication is a core component of David Coney’s articulation of cognitive strategies. Through argumentation, explanation, and critique, high school students might acquire and retain information necessary for college success. This idea has served as a catalyst for the first of three components of reciprocity performed in one of my research sites. As stated in my January blog post, I am facilitating a pre-collegiate course, Collegiate Academic Scholars, for a group of 25 juniors. In this course, students experience hands-on, innovative, and project-based activities grounded in the literature informing college readiness. In this blog post, I focus on the first of three concepts selected to cultivate college readiness by way of the pre-collegiate course: interested-informed activity.
I invited students from Collegiate Academic Scholars on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for what promised to be an interactive day of creative writing and experiencing the campus culture. Over the years, I have worked with students on defining and articulating their mantra—a personal mission statement guiding activities and goals. The students in attendance committed about six hours of their day off from school to spend the day examining and then writing mantras. Early in our dialogue, we decided that mantras were an example of effective communication, persuasive in nature. We then applied our analysis to mantras embedded in songs. We listened to anthems of various pop artists and evaluated the messages that the consumer might conclude from the lyrics.
Shortly after lunch, I decided that it would be best to put the students in the driver’s seat, so to speak. Prior to our meeting, I contacted one of my fraternity brothers to ask whether or not we could “play around” with some of the industry-quality tracks he produced within his production company. Of course he was excited to hear that these young scholars were interested in setting their mantras to music. He encouraged the creation of anthems, and suggested that I continue to mimic what the writing process would be like by creating a few norms. One such example was, “never let them throw anything away.” And so the writing process began. I capture this process by using the following cognitive strategies: critique, argumentation, and explanation.
Critique
We established, at the start of the day, an environment that would welcome debate and constructive criticism. The scholars and I acknowledge that we all have different and shared experiences and our opinions would be valued. Thus, we started the critique process by revisiting the anthems sampled earlier in the day. We discussed common themes, including the textual evidence and imagery embedded in the song. Each scholar offered their thoughts on the target audience for which the anthem was written. We then assessed the strength of the message and how one might feel if he or she was not a part of the target audience, yet consumer of the anthem.
Argumentation
Our discussion of the anthems created a starting point for the scholars to then begin to write. I asked each scholar to prepare a personal mantra. They started by writing quick slogans and taglines. Then, each scholar constructed a short, yet detailed statement to present to the group. I asked that each participant to share their mantra with conviction and passion (such a great moment). They were then offered another two minutes to give examples as to how the ideas of the mantra connected to self-advocacy and resiliency.
Explanation
After the presentation of the mantra, each scholar had to “make their case” in front of a panel of their peers. The entire group sought out common themes, expressing to me what might be a comprehensive mantra to which they could set to music. They began to craft lyrics that encompassed the totality of the ideas they represented as individuals. When a scholar became discouraged with the content and attempted to throw away the work, a peer would step in, demanding an account as to why the lyrics were not acceptable for the collective.
The performance of reciprocity illustrates a sacrifice on the part of the researcher. It is through reciprocity that the scholar displays a commitment of service and expertise to the field, particularly research participants. Through the use of interest-based activity, I argue that these students were able to experience and model another writing process that integrated cognitive strategies and mimicked the experience of college students. As I continue the work with Collegiate Academic Scholars, I plan to share thoughts on students’ critical thinking, as well as research and argumentation. Stay tuned.
