Tests, Têtes, Heads and Skulls

Tags

assess, compassion, determination, evaluate, examine, impulsivity, lecture, quizzing, respect, skull, test, valiant

Drawing of a sectioned skull,1489, from Leonardo da Vinci’s sketch book and right a page from his notebook, including his ‘to do’ list, c.1510 Photo: THE ROYAL COLLECTION. Read more here.

Recently we completed the first trimester, a time of  assessments and report card writing. I’ve written elsewhere about quizzes and tests and exams but these etymological discoveries bear repeating.  ‘Quizzing’  implies etymologically that one is asking about the essence of self. ‘Testing’ in the 14th century meant assaying precious metals in an earthenware pot.  A test was the vessel used to deem the worth of the metals. Latin testudo is tortoise and texere is to weave. All are related to the Latin root testa earthenware pot, or pot fragment, tile. Intriguing also is the discovery that French tête has also evolved from this root with the notion that the skull is the jug or pot of the head! Likewise the German word ‘kopf’ for head is etymologically linked with cup. Read more here at Online Etymology Dictionary.

Exam’, which only appeared in English around 1848, is a clip of much earlier ‘examination’ and initially referred to ‘judicial inquiry’ (14th century) and as test of knowledge from 1610. ‘Examine’ however, in the 13th century meant ‘interrogate, question and torture’ which students would claim to still be true! ‘Assess’ in the 15th century had a sense of fixing the amount of a tax or a fine and shifted somewhat from property in 1934 to ‘judging the value of a person or idea’. The verb evaluate on the other hand is a back formation, attested from 1831 from the older evaluation , 1755, from French valuer which came from Latin valere ‘to be strong, well, of value, be worth’. From this root also sprang valiant. Despite my ambivalence about tests  this orthographic assessing and assaying has instigated a valiant response as the students buzz in and out of the room working together to help each other develop their understandings, to pool their knowledge, develop and critique each others’ hypotheses.

Rather than a list of words plucked randomly from the lexicon, the words on which students will ‘test their mettle’ are words that continue to be critical for our studies year long. The concepts have occurred already in many of the myths and will do so as we examine world religions, religious conflicts and history of the Weimar republic and the dark period of the rise of nazism.

I want this test to measure their thinking and understanding rather than a regurgitation of facts. Of course I hope they remember forever the meaning of the roots, but the majority of this test requires morphological understanding and careful consideration and justification of hypotheses rather than a memorized fact. Can they then apply this to words they have not before encountered? Can they interpret the entry from Online Etymology? And so I continue to repeat to the class that this is less a test of right or wrong but far more a test of thinking and the evidence used to support a hypothesis.

Prior to this test we have slowed down the leap to resources. So many of my students have a tendency to believe that everything is googleable! I have observed how often and swiftly students want to dive into the Online Etymology Dictionary, a critical and invaluable resource but they are so swift and ignore so much in order to grab the first foreign root they stumble over, convinced this is the ‘answer’. So this time we delay the ‘dictionary dive’ and explore what we know, proposing possible morphemes, ‘testing’ this out. Herein is the real test – giving students the space to think. No laptops. No dictionaries. Just themselves and each other. What do you know about this word? What is your hypothesis for the morphemes? What corroborating evidence is there for each proposed element? Label your thinking and then decide what question you have before turning to the dictionaries.

Discussing a hypothesis with the class prior to having looked at any resources:

This process of slowing down the leap to resources has led to:

• thoughtful questions,
• deepened understandings about all aspects of morphology
• clarified for many the relationship between base and root
• revealed the idea that one root can produce more than one base element
• revealed that base elements can be homographic :the free base element <pass> and the bound base element <pass>.

In this test I asked more open ended questions such as:

What is a suffix? Write at least three statements that are trues about suffixes. Support with examples.

What is a base element? How do base elements differ from roots? Write statements that are true about base elements.

The following are written comments from the test: Jasper stated: ‘Base elements can be bound or free, they have roots. Affixes can only become words if there is a base.’ In the anlysis of his word <courage> Jasper noted that <cour> was the base, that it was bound and from Latin cor heart. He gave examples to prove the suffix <-age> as garbage, forage and then counter examples stating <-age> is not a suffix in: image, cage and page.

Isablella stated that: ‘A suffix is not at the end of a word because they are attached either to a base or another suffix. Suffixes can change the tense of the word.’ She explained that a ‘base is the main meaning of the word. Bases differ from roots because the roots are the origin, the building blocks. The root can become many bases and then the bases can have a more specific meaning. Although the base carries the main meaning of a word, the base’s meaning can change slightly depending on what affixes are added. Bases can either be free or bound, free meaning that it can mean something by itself. Bound meaning that you need affixes for it to mean something.’

Ha An wrote: ‘Base elements hold the most meaning in a word. They’re like the first building block, then you add more blocks to it (prefixes and suffixes’). Base elements are indications of the word in the present day and roots are the meaning and origin of the base elements. There can be two base elements in words, for example <everybody>. Some base elements cannot stand alone even though it might look like they can For example <com+pass+ion>. <pass> here is bound. Without bases you do not have a word. More than one base element can come from the same root. For example from Latin specere – <spect> and <spec>.’

I also gave students a word they had not examined in class <lecture> asked them to prove all the morphemes, then develop a question or a statement of what they would look for in the Online Etymology Dictionary.Only when they had analyzed the word and were clear about what they would do with the information from Etymology Online, did I provide them with the printed entry for <lecture>, the noun and verb.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

So what do I look for in a student’s response that indicates understanding about the structure of words? Well, certainly more than a right or wrong answer. As I hope is evident from student responses, I look to see knowledge of the root and its meaning- yes learned, but important to identify relationships between related words. I look to see justification of a hypothesis with relevant supporting evidence. I look for understanding of morphemes, for  analysis of words into prefixes, base elements and suffixes and evidence of  related words. Above all I look for evidence of thinking as the students themselves are learning that spelling or what is termed ‘vocabulary knowledge’ is cognitive, not rote memorization. These samples certainly help to capture student understanding.

I am proud of their achievements. As my sister and I discovered in a recent discussion ( and yes word obsession does appear to be contagious) the word  achievements has quite a lot to do with heads! Intrigued- curiosity piqued? Then read on dear readers here from the Online Etymology Dictionary, the site where all heads like Alices’s become ‘filled with ideas’ although in the case of these 7th grade students their heads are filled with more than ideas as they are beginning to discover the sense and meaning of words.

And to return the beauty of Leonardo da Vinci’s anatomical drawings, in particular those of the skull as seen above. I am fascinated by his mirror handwriting and the discovery that the right hand page contained his packing list for a journey– all the listed items practical if taken up with the structure of the body. I love the reminder to pack spectacles, fork, charcoal, paper and a skull juxtaposed with nutmeg.

‘On the Utilities. Spectacles with case, firestick, fork, bistoury [a surgical knife], charcoal, boards, sheets of paper, chalk, white wax, forceps, pane of glass, fine-tooth bone saw, scalpel, inkhorn, penknife.

“Get hold of a skull. Nutmeg.

“Observe the holes in the substance of the brain, where there are more of less of them.

“Describe the tongue of the woodpecker and jaw of a crocodile.

“Give measurement of the dead using his finger [as a unit].

“Get your books on anatomy bound. Boots, stockings, comb, towel, shirts, shoelaces, penknife, pens, a skin for the chest, gloves, wrapping paper, charcoal.”

Watch below an overview of Leonardo’s anatomical work introduced by Martin Clayton for the 2012 exhibition Leonardo da Vinci: Anatomist

or a 29 minute documentary on Leonardo’s anatomical drawings here. You might be interested in buying an app for the ipad published by the wonderful Touch Press. Check it out here.

Behind the Word: The Hidden Liaisons

Tags

faith, respect, siren

Perchance an early word researcher! My students, dressed less formally, using laptops rather than parchment and quill, search online sources for clues as to the story behind a word. Like this earnest medieval scholar, they too have become dazed and amazed by what they have uncovered in the hidden lives of words!

Students working in pairs are investigating words that reflect concepts of our current unit on religion. These words under investigation are not just ‘unit’ specific. Rather these words crop up and can be applied to characters and themes we encounter in the novels studied, the poetry we read and the historical documents we examine in the units throughout the entire the year.

Below Kathleen and Chloe discuss their research so far on ‘respect’. You will notice that they have not just restricted themselves to a single base element found in the word respect : <re+spect>, but  have attempted to find all bases that have come from the Latin root ‘specere’: to look.

Stefan and Shea investigate the roots and morphemes in <faith>. They share their early discoveries and hypothesis that the root Latin fidere led to more than one base- a free and bound base element in present day English.

 

 

Questions

The research has been conducted by the students in a pair or trio who keep track of their thinking in a shared document. It’s been interesting to address their questions only after they have been able to explain the meaning of the word in their own words and that is after reading several dictionary entries, after reading Online Etymology Dictionary and the Mac Dictionary to explain what they believe is the root and its meaning and provide evidence for their morphemic analysis. Students have come to me with interesting puzzles such as:

“We’re wondering why the letter <s> is not present in the word  <expect> when it it comes from the same Latin root as <respect>. Could this be another base element?”

Another group had a similar question when investigating <inspire> .” Where has the <s> gone in expire?”

“We know that no English word ends with a <v> and to use <ve> instead, but <salv>  is bound base from Latin salvare: to save, with an <l> before the <v> so there seems no need to reinsert a final non syllabic <e>. It is not the same root as the free base <salve> which comes from Old English. What do you think?”

“What is the difference between the prefixes <mon> and <mono>? When should each be used? In <monotheistic>, would it be <mon+o+the+ist+ic> or “mono+the…”? If using “mon+o…” is correct, why is this? Does this then make <mon> become another base and is <monotheism> then a compound word?”

This student and others forming the question above-India, Jemma, and Michael and Junseo and Nick, had found <mon> and <mono> on a prefix chart but were beginning to question this resource. Together they found <monarch> which suggested that the <o> was not always present and therefore not part of the <mon> element but a connecting vowel letter.  This small group discovered that ‘monos’ was a Greek root meaning one. The <-os>  they had noticed appeared to be a Greek suffix that did not carry through into English elements as seen in ‘the(os)’: god.

Later in a conversation with our mentor ‘Old Grouch’ the word <monism> was introduced. This means ‘the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts’ ( Meriman -Webster). Michael, who formed the question above, was able to analyze the word into <mon(e)+ism> and state that this was evidence that <mon> was a base element as no word can exist in English with out one. <Monism> could not possibly be analyzed as being composed of a prefix and a base element. He and his group are off and searching for additional examples to support this blooming hypothesis. They are proud of being specific despite a printed chart labeling this element as a ‘prefix’, or written sources stating ‘word forming element’ or ‘combining form’.

This question above led to another “What makes a prefix, a prefix?”

‘When does a word become English? When is it not viewed as an immigrant?’

The exciting aspect of this research now is that many students want discussion rather than a quick answer. They want to be pointed in a direction for further investigation rather than a right – wrong answer hunt.There is much debate and asking each other questions while I listen to the hypothesises of others. There is revision of an hypothesis in the face of uncovering more evidence. Although the research has been on one word ,that one word has led to another and students have understood that what can be learned from one word applies to hundreds. There is a creeping realization that one source is often not enough to provide evidence.  Slowly many are  beginning to value the process, to become caught up in the quest rather than the swift ‘right’  answer!

Sharing the Story

And where is all this research heading? Students are ‘sharing the back stories’ behind the word, an idea sparked by a ‘wordy’ colleague, Robyn, who is currently uncovering word stories with a group of 7th grade students in Melbourne, Australia.

Below is the work of the group who investigated ‘siren’ . Much of that story I shared  in the previous post. Shania, Nikki and Tatiana created an RSA Animate style to present – a form of visual and spoken note-taking. This involved not only research into the word itself but the RSA Animate genre: limited colours, block lettering in the graphic novel style, a combination of both text and stylised images, planning out the stages of the retelling and working out ahead the most effective layout and design. How could this be achieved without expensive lighting and animation tools? Below is their planning, quickly sketched on the whiteboard:

Plan for the story behind ‘siren’ 

Siren

Watch the first of the student presentations:

What have we learned?

In spite of the miscue  of <* decieve> in the video animation, the students have understood how to find the root, interpret this and comment on how words can change or add in new senses over time. The miscue will be addressed by another group focusing on this base to ensure that the student /artist understands that the bound base element from Latin capere is <ceive>!

Students understand that every word, no matter how humble has a story to tell. Words have a past, have a family from their past and relatives in the present, they associate with others and can clamour and plead and cajole and whine.

Students are unravelling roots to uncover surprising ‘liaisons’: Who would have thought that caught in the roots of obey and obedience lurks Latin audire to listen? Or that infant and fate and nefarious keep company? ‘Who too would have thought that Liaison’  would itself cavort with religion in the Latin root ligare: to tie, to bind?  ‘Liason’ entered English via French in 1640’s and still retains the sense of an exotic new arrival. Who again would have thought that it’s entry into English was via the kitchen as cooking term? It was in the kitchen that ‘eggs were used to achieve the ‘liaison’ (thickening of sauces.'(Hitchings). Two hundred years later liason has extended beyond just any association to those of an intimate illicit association (1806) and to today where it can carry all these senses as well as a generalized sense of co-operation. Words  and what lies at the roots, continue to fascinate and add depth to our reading and writing.