To Study and to Teach: The Methodology of Nechama Leibowitz

learning.

CHAPTER I

NECHAMA LEIBOWITZ’S METHODOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW

Introduction

It is not by chance that an observer of a shiur (class) given by Nechama Liebowitz would have found all of the participants actively involved in the learning. For one thing, Nechama required everyone present to record his/her answers to the questions that she posed. She would personally check many of the answers and give immediate oral or written feedback. But, in reality, the involvement in Nechama’s classes related more to other aspects of her teaching methodology. Nechama believed that true learning takes place only when students are engaged in a thought provoking process of analysis. She opposed the rote learning that is manifested in much of the instructional material on the teaching of Torah. It was Nechama’s selection of texts and commentaries, her presentation of the material, and the types of questions that she asked which most engaged her students. Thus, Nechama’s students, many themselves teachers of Torah, absorbed not only the content of her lessons, but her unique methodology as well. This work is dedicated to the presentation and preservation of that methodology.

The Goals of Torah Instruction

Nechama identified four goals of Torah learning in ascending order:

1. the accumulation of factual knowledge

2. the development of independent learning skills

3. the development of a love of Torah learning

4. the observance of mitzvot

The third goal was in Nechama’s mind primary with regard to Torah instruction. She stressed that although the observance of the mitzvot is the most important goal of Torah learning, the teacher of Torah is limited in this area. Rather, success in instilling a love of Torah learning will in itself lead to the fulfillment of mitzvot. The accomplishment of all of the goals is dependent on the pedagogical methods employed by the teacher.

Active Learning

Nechama believed that in order to fulfill these goals, the teacher must involve the student in active learning. In active learning, the teacher serves as a facilitator of learning rather than as a repository and transmitter of knowledge. Nechama posited that activities which are designed to have students absorb information from an external source ultimately have a minimal impact on learning. But, how does one engage students actively in the study of Torah? While active learning is easy to achieve in the science laboratory, it is much more difficult to create in a Torah lesson. Nechama suggested several trickim (as she called them), strategies designed to achieve that goal. This work presents a number of her pedagogical tips.

The Prohibitions

Accordingly, Nechama listed five common practices from which teachers should refrain:

1. Do not lecture: The lecture format is the classical model of frontal teaching in which the teacher transmits information to the students. In Nechama’s opinion, very little learning takes place using that format. Rather, students must be actively involved in alternative learning activities.

2. Do not allow students to write while you are speaking: The fact that students are writing does not indicate that they are learning. On the contrary, taking notes while the teacher is talking can in fact prevent analytical thinking and learning from taking place. If the student has effectively absorbed the information discussed, he/she will be able to transcribe it afterwards if necessary.

3. Do not give an introduction to the material that is to be studied: Teachers often introduce a unit by providing background information and/or summarizing the material to be studied. Nechama opposed introductions of this nature not only because they are frontal, but also because they may reduce opportunities for discovery. When it is valuable for students to get an overview of the entire section before delving into particulars, she favored the use of alternative activities that would force the students to independently preview the section. A number of these introductory methods are presented in chapter 2.

4. Do not ask students to answer factual questions or to paraphrase: Nechama believed that it is not worthwhile to ask any question where the answer is obvious from the context. Rather, questions should be thought provoking, requiring the student to demonstrate an understanding of the material. For example, on the verse that states: And Yaacov went out of Beer Sheva and he went toward Haran (Bereishit 28:10), Nechama would consider it ineffective to ask students questions like From where did Yaacov leave? or To where did Yaacov travel? These are questions that the students could answer correctly without really understanding what has happened in the story. Rather, one might give students a map and asked them if Yaacov traveled east or west? Or, students might be asked to compare this verse to Bereshit 12:4-5 in which Avraham travels from Haran to Canaan. By tracing the routes of Avraham and Yaacov on the map, the students would see that they have taken opposite routes. This comparison raises the possibility of other thought provoking questions that are appropriate even for young students. The types of questions that Nechama advocated are presented systematically in chapter 4. Other examples can be found throughout this work.

5. Do not use a repetitive lesson structure: Nechama believed that even effective learning activities and questions should not be used in a repetitive fashion. A repetitive style tends to generate routine learning patterns, reducing active involvement on the part of the student. For this reason, Nechama was critical of most Chumash workbooks, which tend to be repetitive and do not place the student in a position of responsibility for learning. The teacher must draw on a repertoire of effective questions and learning activities as they are appropriate to the particular text being studied.

Selecting Texts

Nechama taught that lessons should be varied both in terms of content and style. As such, she advocated a relatively rapid pace in covering Biblical texts. This in itself presents a challenge to the teacher. One could spend weeks, or even months, studying particular sections. Nechama, however, warned against spending too much time on a specific section, particularly in the elementary or high school setting. In an article on the teaching of Akeidat Yitzchak, Nechama indicated that it might be studied for several weeks with adults, but should be covered in the course of a few days with younger students. This requires the teacher to select a particular focus in terms of topics covered and supplementary texts and commentaries utilized.

The teacher has to decide what to leave out and what topics should not be touched, because it is pointless to tackle a number of different topics and problems superficially or incidentally in a chapter. It is preferable to concentrate on just a few topics, but in depth.¹

The types of texts, Midrashim, and commentaries that Nechama selected for instruction generally fall into several categories:

1. Texts that allow for comparison with other Biblical sections: These texts provide the opportunity for students to engage in an internal textual analysis. Nechama’s methodology of textual comparison is discussed in depth in chapter 5.

2. in depth. A list of common textual difficulties is included in Appendix 3.

3. Sections which exhibit unique Biblical literary style: The literary style of the Torah reflects unique formats that can contain additional layers of meaning. Several of these stylistic features are examined in chapter 7.

4. Midrashim and commentaries that help to better understand the text: Nechama’s approach to selecting appropriate exegetical material for instruction is touched upon in chapters 3 and 4.

5. Texts that contain a significant educational message: This criterion was of primary importance to Nechama. She believed that lessons must be built around educational messages that resonate with the students and find application and relevance in their lives.

Two model lessons are presented in chapters 8 and 9 in order to demonstrate the implementation of Nechama’s methodology in lesson preparation. Chapter 8 deals with a legal section, Vayikra 19:1–18, and chapter 9 deals with a narrative section, chapter 4 of Bereishit.

¹ Torah Insights, Eliner Library, Jerusalem, 1995, p. 22

CHAPTER II

INTRODUCING THE UNIT

The purpose of the introductory lesson is to provide the context, to give an overview of the chapter or section to be studied before examining the details. In place of the teacher providing the students with background information, Nechama suggested that students be given an assignment that would require them to independently read and think about the section being studied. The following are a few examples:

1. Tell the students to imagine that they are putting on a play about this section, and to consider one of the following questions:

a. How many set changes would you need in this play?

b. Who is the most important character in the play?

c. What tone of voice would character X employ in his/her part?

Example: Chapter 34 in Bereishit relating to the abduction of Dinah provides a good opportunity for the use of these methodologies.

a. The chapter includes five changes of set – 1) the field, 2) the house of Shechem, 3) the house of Yaacov, 4) the city of Shechem, and 5) the house of Yaacov.

b. It might be a challenge for students to decide who is the main character of the story. Is it Yaacov who struggles with the conflict between his daughter’s welfare and his family’s relations with the local population, is it Dina whose safety is at stake, or is it Shimon and Levi who defend their sister’s honor?

c. If asked to determine Yaacov’s tone of voice, students would have to consider his reaction to different aspects of the story – the tone of his response to the news, of his discussion with Chamor, and his discussion with Shimon and Levi following the massacre.

These three exercises become progressively more sophisticated. The first exercise requires students to review the facts of the story. The second exercise requires some literary analysis and judgement. The third exercise requires psychological analysis.

2. Ask the students to provide a title for the section being studied.

Example: Chapter 34 in Bereishit also provides a good example for the employment of this technique. There are numerous possibilities for titles including: 1) The Abduction of Dinah, 2) Yaacov’s Dilemma, 3) Shimon and Levi to the Rescue, etc. This exercise requires the students to give an opinion regarding the focus of the section.

3. Ask the students to identify the key verse in the section.

Example: A unit on the sixth day of creation, Bereishit 1:24-31, might be introduced with this type of exercise. In this case, it is probable that students will focus on one of two issues: 1) the creation of man, or 2) the completion of the creation process. If the student focuses on the creation of man, he/she might select verse 27 which emphasizes the fact that man was created in the image of God, verse 28 which focuses on man’s relationship with the rest of creation, or verse 26 which introduces the collaborative nature of