I found the Bean’s section “How Do You Teach Groups to Work Well Together?” in Unit 10 to interesting. I thought immediately that I would like to put into practice most everything of what he had to say in this section.
The notion that the instructor SHOULD teach the group how to work well together is something, I’m afraid, that I might very well have over looked. I think I might have made the mistake of assuming the students knew the value of group work, and they knew how to get the most out of the experience. I see that Bean uses the topic as an opportunity to get the class thinking about active listening, learning styles, and the benefit of conflict. All of these are important educational issues in themselves, but in a composition course that is dealing with argument and communication, I find them all the more significant.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Coaching Thinking Skills
(I was unable to get on the blog last week. This post should have appeared at that time)
As usual, I found a lot of useful and applicable ideas in our Bean readings. I liked what he had to say in unit 7 section 7. This is the section on designing active thinking assignment. In this particular section, Mr. Bean talks about “Role-Playing of Unfamiliar Perspectives:” The rationale for assignments of this type is as follows: “By asking students to adopt an unfamiliar perspective or a ‘what if’ situation, we stretch their thinking in productive ways.” Reading this made me think of what I have seen done in business schools where students get instruction in De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. (www.cookps.act.edu.au/hats.htm) In De Bono’s role playing activity, students work collaboratively in a meeting to come to terms with an issue. Each member of the meeting wears a different colored hat – each color symbolizes a certain attitude or perspective that the student must adopt in the meeting. For example, the black hat represents negativity. The student who wears such a hat should respond critically to all suggestions in the mock meeting. Her job it to look for and find weaknesses in the logic or the idea, to find holes in the argument. I don’t know how useful it would be to adopt this method in the composition class, but it does show how the teaching of “active thinking” can have many applications far beyond the composition classroom. And I think is certainly a point I want to make with my students. The real Mr. De Bono’s is a scholar, but he also has a large business consulting company that makes a fortune helping business executives learn to think more actively and creatively.
As usual, I found a lot of useful and applicable ideas in our Bean readings. I liked what he had to say in unit 7 section 7. This is the section on designing active thinking assignment. In this particular section, Mr. Bean talks about “Role-Playing of Unfamiliar Perspectives:” The rationale for assignments of this type is as follows: “By asking students to adopt an unfamiliar perspective or a ‘what if’ situation, we stretch their thinking in productive ways.” Reading this made me think of what I have seen done in business schools where students get instruction in De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. (www.cookps.act.edu.au/hats.htm) In De Bono’s role playing activity, students work collaboratively in a meeting to come to terms with an issue. Each member of the meeting wears a different colored hat – each color symbolizes a certain attitude or perspective that the student must adopt in the meeting. For example, the black hat represents negativity. The student who wears such a hat should respond critically to all suggestions in the mock meeting. Her job it to look for and find weaknesses in the logic or the idea, to find holes in the argument. I don’t know how useful it would be to adopt this method in the composition class, but it does show how the teaching of “active thinking” can have many applications far beyond the composition classroom. And I think is certainly a point I want to make with my students. The real Mr. De Bono’s is a scholar, but he also has a large business consulting company that makes a fortune helping business executives learn to think more actively and creatively.
"...Reading is for idiots."
Like Leta and Claire, I felt like Salvatori had a lot of interesting ideas without much resolution. Even as she offers "certain teaching strategies that simultaneously enable and force me and my students to reflect on the moves we make as readers, writers, and thinkers," she says these strategies are not "mere applications or implementations of somebody else's theories, and [...] I do not intend to offer them as such" (352, italics in original).
Okay...so if they are not applications or implementations of someone else's theories, what are they? Implementations of her own theories? Of course her own theories are going to work for her own classroom. If I was told to think about my own process of reading, I would say "I pick up a book and read it and some things stick out to me because of the theoretical lenses I have been trained to experience." Um...easy enough? If someone asked me to think about my process of writing or thinking, I would probably say "I sit down and write as it comes to me." Maybe if I were in psychology (or perhaps neurology), I would understand the process of thinking a little bit more, but we can't all be so lucky.
So I guess my point is, there are specific fields that focus on the study of reading, writing, and thinking. It's all a little too meta for my tastes, but I recognize that it's also invariably bound up together. One of little quote-gems I took away from this week was "Reading is a form of thinking" (351). Yes, that is out of context, but it still made me laugh out loud. You mean we need to be cognizant to understand words? No, wait...we actually have to think about it? Is it wrong to assume that our students will take this for granted in the same way that we do? Most importantly, am I so indoctrinated into the English discipline that I cannot even comprehend people who think reading is for idiots?
Okay...so if they are not applications or implementations of someone else's theories, what are they? Implementations of her own theories? Of course her own theories are going to work for her own classroom. If I was told to think about my own process of reading, I would say "I pick up a book and read it and some things stick out to me because of the theoretical lenses I have been trained to experience." Um...easy enough? If someone asked me to think about my process of writing or thinking, I would probably say "I sit down and write as it comes to me." Maybe if I were in psychology (or perhaps neurology), I would understand the process of thinking a little bit more, but we can't all be so lucky.
So I guess my point is, there are specific fields that focus on the study of reading, writing, and thinking. It's all a little too meta for my tastes, but I recognize that it's also invariably bound up together. One of little quote-gems I took away from this week was "Reading is a form of thinking" (351). Yes, that is out of context, but it still made me laugh out loud. You mean we need to be cognizant to understand words? No, wait...we actually have to think about it? Is it wrong to assume that our students will take this for granted in the same way that we do? Most importantly, am I so indoctrinated into the English discipline that I cannot even comprehend people who think reading is for idiots?
Some summary
At this point, I've got a basic reading assignment for each paper, either to provide a framework for thinking about the assignment or to form part of the assignment itself. For the poetry paper, it's that X.J. Kennedy essay. I had planned just to have students write a summary, but I'm wondering if that will be as effective as I'd like at helping students extract value from the reading. So, maybe a kind of directed summary, where I ask them to look for certain types of things- method for reading, terms, what he considers important, as well as a response: how they think they can apply his ideas. The second activity around the reading would be in-class discussion of the essay, followed by a practice reading in which we use his method.
Also, one of the texts I'm reviewing (Writing Analytically) has some great stuff on _reading_ analytically as well- multiple methods for effective reading, with a variety of texts as examples. I'm hoping this will help them find a method or two that works for them.
I also like the small group discussion/large group report technique, though the key seems to be to provide adequate direction for the small groups. If the questions are too easy, the discussion ends quickly; too complex, and it might never get off the ground.
Also, one of the texts I'm reviewing (Writing Analytically) has some great stuff on _reading_ analytically as well- multiple methods for effective reading, with a variety of texts as examples. I'm hoping this will help them find a method or two that works for them.
I also like the small group discussion/large group report technique, though the key seems to be to provide adequate direction for the small groups. If the questions are too easy, the discussion ends quickly; too complex, and it might never get off the ground.
Active Teaching, Active Learning
A common theme that I see in all of the readings for today is a tendency toward encouraging active learning, and a corresponding role for an instructor to actively teach. That might prompt some to laugh ("isn't all teaching 'active'?")--and that's not a problem for me as I love to play the fool. But it's not as simple (or simple-minded) as it sounds. One of the smartest things I've ever done is to take 8040 alongside 8010, because so much of the discussion in the former relates to the latter. I'm the only member of the cohort in 8040 and I'm the greenhorn, to be sure--everyone else has taught and they have lots of great insights into what actually happens in an English 1000 classroom. On more than one occasion someone has commented that English 1000 students regard the instructor as omniscient (or at least pretend to)--this usually reflects how they've been conditioned (from K through 12) to view the instructor. I submit that many college/university instructors, in fact, assume the role of "Teacher-God." What a critical pedagogy presumes, however (and I feel that the views and strategies outlined in the readings today compliment this view), is that, in fact, "We know that a [classroom] does not consist of a line of [ideas], releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the [Teacher]-God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the [classroom] is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture" (with apologies to Roland Barthes for lifting and altering one of his best-known--because it's awesome--lines).
The strategies that Bean and Damour/Curzan outline for getting students to actively participate in class (through group activities, through discussion, through reading exercises, etc.) and the critical reflexivity orientation that Salvatori advocates dovetail nicely with the critical pedagogy that I want to adopt in my classes. Salvatori's piece is more of a call to action than a list of operationalizing strategies (like Bean and Damour/Curzan's): she asserts that "we must find ways of providing that kind of training ["developing the critical mind"] even within institutional environments that are opposed to it" (358). I whole-heartedly agree. I don't see the opposition she sees coming from cultural studies (that's perhaps due to my own naive belief in an ecumenical approach to theory) but I agree with her orientation--after all, what could speak more to the critical pedagogical approach than how Salvatori ends her piece: "Let me suggest that teaching reading and writing as interconnected activities, teaching students how to perform critically and self-reflexively those recuperative acts by means of which they can conjecture a text's, a person's, argument and can establish a responsible critical dialogue with it, as well as the text they compose in response to it, might be an approach appropriate to developing the critical mind--an approach that might mark the difference between their partaking in, and their being passively led through their own education" (358).
The strategies that Bean and Damour/Curzan outline for getting students to actively participate in class (through group activities, through discussion, through reading exercises, etc.) and the critical reflexivity orientation that Salvatori advocates dovetail nicely with the critical pedagogy that I want to adopt in my classes. Salvatori's piece is more of a call to action than a list of operationalizing strategies (like Bean and Damour/Curzan's): she asserts that "we must find ways of providing that kind of training ["developing the critical mind"] even within institutional environments that are opposed to it" (358). I whole-heartedly agree. I don't see the opposition she sees coming from cultural studies (that's perhaps due to my own naive belief in an ecumenical approach to theory) but I agree with her orientation--after all, what could speak more to the critical pedagogical approach than how Salvatori ends her piece: "Let me suggest that teaching reading and writing as interconnected activities, teaching students how to perform critically and self-reflexively those recuperative acts by means of which they can conjecture a text's, a person's, argument and can establish a responsible critical dialogue with it, as well as the text they compose in response to it, might be an approach appropriate to developing the critical mind--an approach that might mark the difference between their partaking in, and their being passively led through their own education" (358).
Did someone say 'reading'?
Reading Mairolina Salvatori’s piece about the interconnectedness of reading and writing gave me a better understanding of why and how students can improve their writing through reading. I think I had a vague idea of the benefits of analyzing the argument of another text could help students make arguments of their own. It seemed to me that written texts could act as models for students to study and imitate in their papers.
And, to a certain extent, this is what Salvatori has in mind—but she certainly has a much more sophisticated idea of the role reading should play in learning to write. I appreciate her idea of readers as the “interlocutors” of texts. If students learned to play this role as they read, then they might change their writing, as Salvatori suggests, allowing their readers to be interlocutors as well.
My biggest question for Salvatori is what written texts should be taught? She seems to privilege literary texts, which is certainly music our ears. Finally! Students in all disciplines have a practical use for the English department—the best way to learn to write is to learn to read literature. I wonder whether students can get the same benefits from learning to read a newspaper editorial, a piece of graffiti, “The Declaration of Independence,” or a chemistry textbook?
And, to a certain extent, this is what Salvatori has in mind—but she certainly has a much more sophisticated idea of the role reading should play in learning to write. I appreciate her idea of readers as the “interlocutors” of texts. If students learned to play this role as they read, then they might change their writing, as Salvatori suggests, allowing their readers to be interlocutors as well.
My biggest question for Salvatori is what written texts should be taught? She seems to privilege literary texts, which is certainly music our ears. Finally! Students in all disciplines have a practical use for the English department—the best way to learn to write is to learn to read literature. I wonder whether students can get the same benefits from learning to read a newspaper editorial, a piece of graffiti, “The Declaration of Independence,” or a chemistry textbook?
Reading Assignments
Well, Bri helped me get back up on the blog thank goodness! Anyway, I wanted to discuss the idea of what assignments would help students to deal with my reading assignments for EN1000. Right now I only have a hazy idea (it's been a sick week for me), but I think what may help them is to assign them 2 questions to answer when finished reading each assignment. I will ask them to first identify a passage that caused them the most trouble and why. Then I will ask them to write what they believed was the most important information from the reading and why. With reading their responses, hopefully I can then get a sense of what kind of reading causes them the most trouble so that I can share some strategies with them. I also like the idea in Bean about showing students my own marked copy of a text and explaining my reading process to them.
One other idea I have is using the discussion board on blackboard so they can have a running conversation among themselves which will hopefully answer a lot of their questions as well as show them all some various viewpoints on the reading.
One other idea I have is using the discussion board on blackboard so they can have a running conversation among themselves which will hopefully answer a lot of their questions as well as show them all some various viewpoints on the reading.
Will they love to read as much as me?
(Un)Fortunately—depends on the perspective, I do plan on having a significant portion of my course dedicated to assigned readings. Bean helped me to get over some of the apprehensions I did have about assigning readings (specifically criticisms), and exactly how much may be too much for freshman. Actually Chapter 7 has provided me with the most insight thus far out of all our readings. Readings are essential to my course; I imagine them going hand in hand with each assignment, both my formal writing assignments and exploratory assignments.
Two assignments I’m pondering to help assist students with their reading load (for which Bean has influenced my thinking) are reading logs and writing “translations.” Though reading logs do seem that they would be very time consuming, maybe a weekly post/entry about any given reading will be better. Giving students the opportunity to record their perspective of what they’ve read, along with room to express their opinions will help them to comprehend the readings more, as well as foster an open, respectful learning environment. As for writing “translations,” this could possibly go along with the reading log. Knowing how a student interprets a text will assist me with knowing what aspects of the text need to be better defined or analyzed as a whole. Also, it will helping in determining which direction discussions should go. Just my initial thoughts… Still working on them
Two assignments I’m pondering to help assist students with their reading load (for which Bean has influenced my thinking) are reading logs and writing “translations.” Though reading logs do seem that they would be very time consuming, maybe a weekly post/entry about any given reading will be better. Giving students the opportunity to record their perspective of what they’ve read, along with room to express their opinions will help them to comprehend the readings more, as well as foster an open, respectful learning environment. As for writing “translations,” this could possibly go along with the reading log. Knowing how a student interprets a text will assist me with knowing what aspects of the text need to be better defined or analyzed as a whole. Also, it will helping in determining which direction discussions should go. Just my initial thoughts… Still working on them
Salvatori
I just finished reading the Salvatori chapter this morning before coming to campus and I was glad to read Leta's blog, because I had a similar reaction to the essay.
Either I'm not reading well (or reading argumentatively?) or I just don't know enough about composition as a discipline, but I just couldn't get ahold of the essay. I was compelled by the idea that reading is a critical step in the process of learning to write, but I felt like the essay didn't make me understand what she was talking about. If, as she says on page 349, "The argument is about which kind of reading gets to be theorized and practiced," then what kind of reading, specifically, is she advocating? I felt like I needed a lot more concrete examples than Salvatori was offering, and I needed to be walked through more scenarios that explored her teaching approaches.
I did appreciate the section on page 353 where she describes the discussion surrounding the marks students made in their text; that helped me get an idea of how she envisioned this approach in the classroom. I also appreciated her statement on page 356: "My aim is to point out that these notions of reading may lead to approaches to teaching that are potentially elitest and exclusionary." She's refering to English graduate students description of reading (which almost reads like a conversion narrative), and I really agree that we can't be too aware of the potential distance between our own point of view and the points of view of our students.
However, I found Salvatori's comments about the reactions of "creative writing" and "culture studies" students/instructors odd. Salvatori seems to try to be open-minded and considerate of other points of view, but I feel like she's being rather condescending toward culture studies, specifically. She says, "What is so disturbing and uncomfortable about critical reflexivity?"(357) but I wonder, "What does she find so disturbing and uncomfortable about a critique of her theories and methods?" Folklore (my area of interest) is not culture studies (and for an in-depth discussion of this see me outside of class) but has some things in common with culture studies. I think that present-day folklore scholarship is almost excruciatingly self-reflexive and self-critical, and I wonder what, specifically, prompted Salvatori's (almost) diatribe?
How I might use her methods in Eng 1K assignments I will save for another blog.
Either I'm not reading well (or reading argumentatively?) or I just don't know enough about composition as a discipline, but I just couldn't get ahold of the essay. I was compelled by the idea that reading is a critical step in the process of learning to write, but I felt like the essay didn't make me understand what she was talking about. If, as she says on page 349, "The argument is about which kind of reading gets to be theorized and practiced," then what kind of reading, specifically, is she advocating? I felt like I needed a lot more concrete examples than Salvatori was offering, and I needed to be walked through more scenarios that explored her teaching approaches.
I did appreciate the section on page 353 where she describes the discussion surrounding the marks students made in their text; that helped me get an idea of how she envisioned this approach in the classroom. I also appreciated her statement on page 356: "My aim is to point out that these notions of reading may lead to approaches to teaching that are potentially elitest and exclusionary." She's refering to English graduate students description of reading (which almost reads like a conversion narrative), and I really agree that we can't be too aware of the potential distance between our own point of view and the points of view of our students.
However, I found Salvatori's comments about the reactions of "creative writing" and "culture studies" students/instructors odd. Salvatori seems to try to be open-minded and considerate of other points of view, but I feel like she's being rather condescending toward culture studies, specifically. She says, "What is so disturbing and uncomfortable about critical reflexivity?"(357) but I wonder, "What does she find so disturbing and uncomfortable about a critique of her theories and methods?" Folklore (my area of interest) is not culture studies (and for an in-depth discussion of this see me outside of class) but has some things in common with culture studies. I think that present-day folklore scholarship is almost excruciatingly self-reflexive and self-critical, and I wonder what, specifically, prompted Salvatori's (almost) diatribe?
How I might use her methods in Eng 1K assignments I will save for another blog.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Select-a-Text, complete with Activities
The Bean chapter for this week was one of the first ones I found directly applicable to English 1000 teaching — all the other ones seem very interdisciplinary, which is fine, but we Enlightened English Students know writing is important already.
Anyway, I've sort of been struggling with what types of readings I want to assign. I had started with the standard assumption I would be teaching a novel (most likely To Kill a Mockingbird, but maybe something more contemporary), but now I'm not so sure. Because I'm not guaranteed to have students who are yearning to blossom into wonderful literary analysts, who am I to "force them" to read a novel, which would be "just entertainment"? Of course, if I incorporate films into my class, that's even "less" academic.
All emphatic quotation marks aside, the two reading activities I have brainstormed are as follows:
1) This is a variation on the activity I brought up in one of my previous posts (incorporating Rogerian argument). I would ask them to write one sentence to summarize each paragraph of a particularly difficult (or simply a scholarly) essay, and then have them summarize the author's argument and personal biases (e.g. educational background, gender, class). I am not sure if I want to place such a heavy emphasis on negative biases (like racism or sexism), but I still want the students to learn that every author has a set of values that s/he cannot discard. This is primarily drawn from Bean's exercise on 140 about the Author's Frame of Reference, and Elbow's believing and doubting game.
2) I also really liked the idea of coming up with questions to guide readings. Not that I would want the students to get ONLY what I want them to get out of a text, but if the reading is something I think they're having difficulty with, I would rather they be pointed somewhere than left with everywhere to go and no idea how to choose. Incidentally, I think these guide questions come up a lot on assignment sheets and I don't think they should, because I would be confused as to which of the questions my paper should answer. Still, they are often important questions that can spark good thoughts. I just don't plan to introduce them in the context of an assignment.
Anyway, I've sort of been struggling with what types of readings I want to assign. I had started with the standard assumption I would be teaching a novel (most likely To Kill a Mockingbird, but maybe something more contemporary), but now I'm not so sure. Because I'm not guaranteed to have students who are yearning to blossom into wonderful literary analysts, who am I to "force them" to read a novel, which would be "just entertainment"? Of course, if I incorporate films into my class, that's even "less" academic.
All emphatic quotation marks aside, the two reading activities I have brainstormed are as follows:
1) This is a variation on the activity I brought up in one of my previous posts (incorporating Rogerian argument). I would ask them to write one sentence to summarize each paragraph of a particularly difficult (or simply a scholarly) essay, and then have them summarize the author's argument and personal biases (e.g. educational background, gender, class). I am not sure if I want to place such a heavy emphasis on negative biases (like racism or sexism), but I still want the students to learn that every author has a set of values that s/he cannot discard. This is primarily drawn from Bean's exercise on 140 about the Author's Frame of Reference, and Elbow's believing and doubting game.
2) I also really liked the idea of coming up with questions to guide readings. Not that I would want the students to get ONLY what I want them to get out of a text, but if the reading is something I think they're having difficulty with, I would rather they be pointed somewhere than left with everywhere to go and no idea how to choose. Incidentally, I think these guide questions come up a lot on assignment sheets and I don't think they should, because I would be confused as to which of the questions my paper should answer. Still, they are often important questions that can spark good thoughts. I just don't plan to introduce them in the context of an assignment.
Using Bean to Structure Reading Assignments
I found the Bean chapter on reading assignments to be quite useful. Because the fist chunk of my class will be dedicated to reading White Noise, I think I'll need quite a few different types of reading assignments to keep things interesting. I definitely plan to use what Bean calls "Translations" -- probably during class time for the most part. I can think of several passages in the Delillo novel in particular that are somewhat baffling. I like the idea of encouraging close reading because -- if you choose a good passage to analyze -- the students will see how much subtlety (and even mystery) can lie beneath an apparently simple block of prose.
I would also like to employ reading quizzes (fairly regularly, but not heavily weighted), though I'm not so sure I like Bean's idea of students writing their own quizzes. I think it's possible to structure a simple quiz that can test more than just rote memorization of factual data. I think a good quiz would probably require a short response to a clear prompt that refers to something central in the reading for the day. The question or prompt itself could be more complicated, but it should refer to something that anyone reading the text would remember -- if he or she were reading with any level of awareness. I'll consider the idea of self-constructed quizzes, but I'm not sure I see the benefits just yet. Bean claims that self-created quizzes allow students to "distinguish between main and subordinate material, between points and data, and between concepts and illustrations" (146) -- but why couldn't a traditional quiz do the same?
In addition to these (and likely other) in-class reading activities, I am toying with the idea of assigning a "Reading Log," but allowing a much more creative engagement with the text than a traditional "journal." I would encourage students to share personal reactions to the text, compose creative work based on the reading (drawings, poetry, short stories, etc), and just generally to explore text in any way they want. I need to work on how I would assign this, but I think it may be something I collect every 2 weeks to check for progress -- and then at the end of the semester for a grade. These are just some preliminary ideas. I imagine that I'll have something more solid by the time the semester rolls around.
I would also like to employ reading quizzes (fairly regularly, but not heavily weighted), though I'm not so sure I like Bean's idea of students writing their own quizzes. I think it's possible to structure a simple quiz that can test more than just rote memorization of factual data. I think a good quiz would probably require a short response to a clear prompt that refers to something central in the reading for the day. The question or prompt itself could be more complicated, but it should refer to something that anyone reading the text would remember -- if he or she were reading with any level of awareness. I'll consider the idea of self-constructed quizzes, but I'm not sure I see the benefits just yet. Bean claims that self-created quizzes allow students to "distinguish between main and subordinate material, between points and data, and between concepts and illustrations" (146) -- but why couldn't a traditional quiz do the same?
In addition to these (and likely other) in-class reading activities, I am toying with the idea of assigning a "Reading Log," but allowing a much more creative engagement with the text than a traditional "journal." I would encourage students to share personal reactions to the text, compose creative work based on the reading (drawings, poetry, short stories, etc), and just generally to explore text in any way they want. I need to work on how I would assign this, but I think it may be something I collect every 2 weeks to check for progress -- and then at the end of the semester for a grade. These are just some preliminary ideas. I imagine that I'll have something more solid by the time the semester rolls around.
Salvatori
As I read through the Salvatori text, I found myself resistant to the kind of teaching she is advocating. I think that there are two reasons for my resistance: the first is that I think that I, as a freshman, would have hated this type of class, and the second is that I, as an inexperienced teacher, am not convinced that I could successfully run this type of class. Granted, those objections don't undermine the validity of her work, but they do mean that my use of her ideas will most likely be somewhat limited.
I do think that it is important to teach reading, as well as writing, in our classrooms, and I think Bean gives good suggestions for how to do this, but I was put off by Salvatori's emphasis on self-analysis. Rather than asking students "to construct a reflective commentary on the moves they made as readers and the possible reasons for them," I would prefer to work with students to understand other possible readings of the work through class discussion (352). I think that my own understanding of my reading process and of other possible ways of reading has come more through class discussion than through analyzing my own readings. I think that I would be among the students who felt "resistance" to this type of "introspective reading" (353).
Salvatori acknowledges that "to teach--rather than just to understand-- that interconnectedness is a highly constructed, unnatural, obtrusive activity-- one that requires a particular kind of training that...U.S. eduational systems and traditions have neither made available or valorized," and, frankly, I don't feel that I'd do a particularly good job teaching this way (351). I'm not sure that I'd be able to pick up on the "clues" that students "offer that might make it possible...to develop a strategy that answers the need of the moment" (353). Thinking on my feet is not my strong point. I agree that we shouldn't be discouraged just because things are "'difficult,'" but I think that using Salvatori's strategies would not be the most effective way for me to teach.
I do think that it is important to teach reading, as well as writing, in our classrooms, and I think Bean gives good suggestions for how to do this, but I was put off by Salvatori's emphasis on self-analysis. Rather than asking students "to construct a reflective commentary on the moves they made as readers and the possible reasons for them," I would prefer to work with students to understand other possible readings of the work through class discussion (352). I think that my own understanding of my reading process and of other possible ways of reading has come more through class discussion than through analyzing my own readings. I think that I would be among the students who felt "resistance" to this type of "introspective reading" (353).
Salvatori acknowledges that "to teach--rather than just to understand-- that interconnectedness is a highly constructed, unnatural, obtrusive activity-- one that requires a particular kind of training that...U.S. eduational systems and traditions have neither made available or valorized," and, frankly, I don't feel that I'd do a particularly good job teaching this way (351). I'm not sure that I'd be able to pick up on the "clues" that students "offer that might make it possible...to develop a strategy that answers the need of the moment" (353). Thinking on my feet is not my strong point. I agree that we shouldn't be discouraged just because things are "'difficult,'" but I think that using Salvatori's strategies would not be the most effective way for me to teach.
More reading assignments
Bean’s chapter on helping students in reading contains a lot of useful information. I liked types of assignments offered by the author. During the semester, it makes sense to monitor students’ reading skills and teach them reading before giving them challenging assignments such as comparative analysis of two texts or something like this. It is good to introduce them to academic discourse.
An assignment of this kind I am thinking about is reading texts in class and working with them. I could hand out two articles dealing with the same problem, an “academic” one and another written in a style of a popular magazine. The topic can be general, for example, environment. The detailed reading and analysis of differences and similarities in two pieces can help students in finding ways to comprehend complex style.
I liked marginal notes approach and writing “translations”. Reading assignments can help each student to work in his/her field. A task can be to choose an article in a field of their majors (or supposed majors) and try to 1) explain its meaning and 2) give the opinion on this piece in a written response.
An assignment of this kind I am thinking about is reading texts in class and working with them. I could hand out two articles dealing with the same problem, an “academic” one and another written in a style of a popular magazine. The topic can be general, for example, environment. The detailed reading and analysis of differences and similarities in two pieces can help students in finding ways to comprehend complex style.
I liked marginal notes approach and writing “translations”. Reading assignments can help each student to work in his/her field. A task can be to choose an article in a field of their majors (or supposed majors) and try to 1) explain its meaning and 2) give the opinion on this piece in a written response.
Reading + Writing = Love.
“How can teachers teach their students to perform a kind of reading that they have themselves learned to perform mysteriously and magically?”
I responded with a lot of enthusiasm to Salvatori’s article, and this quote in particular, precisely because I’ve been struggling to articulate my own experience with reading and its influence on my writing. As the proverbial nerd, I grew up immersed in books. I walked around town with a book in constantly in front of my face and spent most afternoons in the library. As I never remember receiving any formal instruction in regards to crafting an essay, I can only assume that those billions of hours spent reading somehow shaped and honed my skills as a writer.
However, I’m not naïve enough to assume that most (or perhaps all) of my students will echo my almost creepy love of literature. While I recognize this and don’t think an intense love of books is essential to good writing, I nonetheless believe my skills as a writer have come from the immense amounts of reading I’ve done throughout my life. My conception of reading, though, has remained one akin to the ‘mysterious and magical’ perspective described by Salvatori. Thus, I’ve been concerned how to teach composition when I can’t truly evaluate and articulate my own interaction with reading and writing. I’ve understood that there must be some sort of connection, but I’ve never really pinpointed how or why that connection surfaced and developed.
Salvatori’s article offered a concrete way to analyze the connection between my writing and reading. The interconnectedness of reading and writing seems natural to me, as does Salvatori’s conception of reading “as a form of thinking” (351). I used Salvatori’s argument on page 354 (where she asserts that a difficult passage in a text is one that demands critical engagement) with a student today in the Writing Lab, and found that the student responded favorably and with greater attention to the complicated poem she was examining. I also liked Salvatori’s assignment described on page 353, which transformed “a rather mechanical study habit—the highlighting of a text—into a strategy”. I plan on devising similar assignments for my students, which I hope will improve their writing and reading skills by highlighting the relationship between the two practices.
I responded with a lot of enthusiasm to Salvatori’s article, and this quote in particular, precisely because I’ve been struggling to articulate my own experience with reading and its influence on my writing. As the proverbial nerd, I grew up immersed in books. I walked around town with a book in constantly in front of my face and spent most afternoons in the library. As I never remember receiving any formal instruction in regards to crafting an essay, I can only assume that those billions of hours spent reading somehow shaped and honed my skills as a writer.
However, I’m not naïve enough to assume that most (or perhaps all) of my students will echo my almost creepy love of literature. While I recognize this and don’t think an intense love of books is essential to good writing, I nonetheless believe my skills as a writer have come from the immense amounts of reading I’ve done throughout my life. My conception of reading, though, has remained one akin to the ‘mysterious and magical’ perspective described by Salvatori. Thus, I’ve been concerned how to teach composition when I can’t truly evaluate and articulate my own interaction with reading and writing. I’ve understood that there must be some sort of connection, but I’ve never really pinpointed how or why that connection surfaced and developed.
Salvatori’s article offered a concrete way to analyze the connection between my writing and reading. The interconnectedness of reading and writing seems natural to me, as does Salvatori’s conception of reading “as a form of thinking” (351). I used Salvatori’s argument on page 354 (where she asserts that a difficult passage in a text is one that demands critical engagement) with a student today in the Writing Lab, and found that the student responded favorably and with greater attention to the complicated poem she was examining. I also liked Salvatori’s assignment described on page 353, which transformed “a rather mechanical study habit—the highlighting of a text—into a strategy”. I plan on devising similar assignments for my students, which I hope will improve their writing and reading skills by highlighting the relationship between the two practices.
Salvatori--the Argument of Reading
Salvatori's theory and practice of the reading/writing interconnectedness is well worth considering, and implementing into the classroom, though I wonder if the class can be structured in such a way as to truly integrate her theory in full. Certainly some of the exercises she suggests could be used, depending on the type of reading the class is doing, and the type of writing they are being assigned. The suggestion of having a discussion about the difficulty of reading the text before actually discussing the meaning of the text can be useful depending on the text being looked at (I did a similar thing when I used to teach Greek plays).
I like the activity she suggested of taking a student who has written a hasty generalization in response to looking at a text's argument and then having them high-light the areas of the text they connected with in order to write their paper. Then have them look at the areas they glossed-over more closely. Such activities could be done as a class exercise that would lead to a freewriting involving those portions of the text that were not initially considered to be of importance.
If anything, I wanted her to provide even more activities. Some of the ones she did suggest, such as keeping journals, etc. are already widely used.
I like the activity she suggested of taking a student who has written a hasty generalization in response to looking at a text's argument and then having them high-light the areas of the text they connected with in order to write their paper. Then have them look at the areas they glossed-over more closely. Such activities could be done as a class exercise that would lead to a freewriting involving those portions of the text that were not initially considered to be of importance.
If anything, I wanted her to provide even more activities. Some of the ones she did suggest, such as keeping journals, etc. are already widely used.
Reading assignments
I'm vacillating with regards to writing assignments. My initial thought was to bring in classic examples of well-written professional prose, particularly those pieces which are lively, well-written, and intellectually compelling. Yet, for the last few weeks, I've been torn about this issue. For example, neither of the pieces that I brought in for our argumentation show and tell follow the trajectory of a well-reasoned college essay. That's not to say that I don't want my students to be able to write like Zora Neale Hurston, for example, but rather that they will need to learn to write thesis-centered academic essays.
I think that I would like to start them off with student-written essays, maybe even some of my really awful ones (though I might not tell them they're mine at first, since I will want them to be unreserved). Whether the papers they examine are mine or someone else's, I want them to see what academic writing looks like in both its successful and its unsuccessful states.
After we trudge through some of these more basic example-driven texts, however, I want to guide them into provocative popular argumentative pieces. Hurston is one example. A few others I've tossed around are, "Black Men in Public Spaces" by Brent Staples, "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority" by Ronald Takaki, "Mother Tongue" by Amy Tan, "Aria" by Richard Rodriguez, and other texts that confront stereotypes and will prompt discussion (and paper ideas).
There are some written forms that I want to expose them to (humor, satire, letters, poems, etc) but will not spend a whole lot of time on, but I think I'll save that discussion for later.
--Discussion Hog
I think that I would like to start them off with student-written essays, maybe even some of my really awful ones (though I might not tell them they're mine at first, since I will want them to be unreserved). Whether the papers they examine are mine or someone else's, I want them to see what academic writing looks like in both its successful and its unsuccessful states.
After we trudge through some of these more basic example-driven texts, however, I want to guide them into provocative popular argumentative pieces. Hurston is one example. A few others I've tossed around are, "Black Men in Public Spaces" by Brent Staples, "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority" by Ronald Takaki, "Mother Tongue" by Amy Tan, "Aria" by Richard Rodriguez, and other texts that confront stereotypes and will prompt discussion (and paper ideas).
There are some written forms that I want to expose them to (humor, satire, letters, poems, etc) but will not spend a whole lot of time on, but I think I'll save that discussion for later.
--Discussion Hog
Monday, February 26, 2007
Reading Activities
I think that Bean Ch. 8 brings up a very important point regarding the fact that freshmen really don't know how to read on the college level yet. It seems particularly important when you consider that College Composition is the class where they should learn how to do this, but so often a class that is writing based can lose focus on the fact that a class on writing should also be a class on reading as well.
One activity for this would be to actually take class time to walk students through how to do a careful reading. This could involve reading aloud an essay from the class text and stopping after each paragraph to look at what was accomplished in the paragraph, to sum it up, or to try to get a hint of where the writer is going. Teach them to write short, quick paraphrases in the margins of what the paragraph said.
I do think it could also be useful to show the students a bit of my own reading and writing process, though this could be tricky as well. The main point would be to show them that a lot of preliminary work goes into good reading, as well as good writing; to show them that the early process is rough, but should allow for a free flow of ideas. The down-side is opening up your work to your students' judgment and the possibility that they may try to use the "flaws" in your brainstorming and rough draft writing against you, or to justify why their own flaws are deserving of being looked over. Of course, the best response to that is to remind them that it is a process, which is messy at first, but that the final product of the paper itself is what is being judged.
One activity for this would be to actually take class time to walk students through how to do a careful reading. This could involve reading aloud an essay from the class text and stopping after each paragraph to look at what was accomplished in the paragraph, to sum it up, or to try to get a hint of where the writer is going. Teach them to write short, quick paraphrases in the margins of what the paragraph said.
I do think it could also be useful to show the students a bit of my own reading and writing process, though this could be tricky as well. The main point would be to show them that a lot of preliminary work goes into good reading, as well as good writing; to show them that the early process is rough, but should allow for a free flow of ideas. The down-side is opening up your work to your students' judgment and the possibility that they may try to use the "flaws" in your brainstorming and rough draft writing against you, or to justify why their own flaws are deserving of being looked over. Of course, the best response to that is to remind them that it is a process, which is messy at first, but that the final product of the paper itself is what is being judged.
Bri, the Discussion Hog.
I liked Curzan and Damour’s suggestions regarding quiet students in Chapter 4. I’ve been considering how to handle quiet students in my classroom, since I’m emphasizing class participation in my syllabus. As a student who was once (and still is, to a certain extent) painfully awkward and shy, I understand the difficulties facing the less-than-outgoing kid. I really like the idea of offering such students the opportunity to contribute outside of class, during office hours. Small groups and freewrites prior to discussion also seem like effective ways of drawing the quiet student out of his/her shell.
I’m still not entirely sure how handle the “Bomb Dropper”, however, which we discussed last week in class. While I can see the validity in Curzan and Damour’s proposal to turn the uncomfortable situation into a teaching opportunity, I’m not sure I’ll have the lucidity to actually implement such a strategy. I’ve witnessed a similar occurrence in the classroom, and reacted with such vehement disgust that I’m wary of my emotional reaction as an instructor. I would be tempted to simply kick the student out, though I know Damour’s idea is much more appropriate and constructive.
Also, I laughed to realize that Bri was a great example during Rebecca’s lesson last week of “The Discussion Hog”. While the “direct and gentle” (Damour 60) would most likely be the best method in English 1000, it was nice to openly ridicule the obnoxious student for once. Well, at least it was fun to laugh at Bri.
I’m still not entirely sure how handle the “Bomb Dropper”, however, which we discussed last week in class. While I can see the validity in Curzan and Damour’s proposal to turn the uncomfortable situation into a teaching opportunity, I’m not sure I’ll have the lucidity to actually implement such a strategy. I’ve witnessed a similar occurrence in the classroom, and reacted with such vehement disgust that I’m wary of my emotional reaction as an instructor. I would be tempted to simply kick the student out, though I know Damour’s idea is much more appropriate and constructive.
Also, I laughed to realize that Bri was a great example during Rebecca’s lesson last week of “The Discussion Hog”. While the “direct and gentle” (Damour 60) would most likely be the best method in English 1000, it was nice to openly ridicule the obnoxious student for once. Well, at least it was fun to laugh at Bri.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Reading and responding
I've been thinking about what kinds of reading assignments I want to give my students, and, while I'm coming up with some ideas, I'm also having a bit of difficulty. The difficulty is primarily because of my focus on big political issues; unfortunately, if something has happened recently, there generally isn't a whole lot of quality poetry/fiction to draw from--or at least not a whole lot that I am familiar with. Fortunately (at least from the perspective of having to figure out what to assign my students), some of these issues are timeless--like war-- and some of them have been big issues for a long time--like immigration. I'm planning on having my students read a fair number of nonfiction works that explicitly make arguments, so finding those won't be too problematic. The bigger problem is finding poetry/fiction. While I'm making progress, I'd appreciate suggestions...
Many of the literary works I've found that I want to use are poems. Because many students may have limited experience with poetry, I may ask them to write "translations," as Bean calls them. I've had to do this in literature classes, and I think it could be really useful to help them to go through, line by line, rather than just skimming. I may assign this either as an in-class activity or as homework; either way, I'd plan on spending some class time going over their translations to guide a discussion about the poems.
Another activity I'd like to use is to "Help students see that all texts are trying to change their view of something" (Bean 142). Especially with poetry, they may have trouble discerning the argument. Because of this, and because I want them to engage with these arguments in their writing, I plan to have them respond to the questions Bean suggests about what the the author assumed their prior beliefs to be and what change the author wanted to make in their beliefs, as well as why this change did or did not occur. I would probably have the students do this as homework, but, again, I would probably use this to drive discussion as a class or in small groups.
Many of the literary works I've found that I want to use are poems. Because many students may have limited experience with poetry, I may ask them to write "translations," as Bean calls them. I've had to do this in literature classes, and I think it could be really useful to help them to go through, line by line, rather than just skimming. I may assign this either as an in-class activity or as homework; either way, I'd plan on spending some class time going over their translations to guide a discussion about the poems.
Another activity I'd like to use is to "Help students see that all texts are trying to change their view of something" (Bean 142). Especially with poetry, they may have trouble discerning the argument. Because of this, and because I want them to engage with these arguments in their writing, I plan to have them respond to the questions Bean suggests about what the the author assumed their prior beliefs to be and what change the author wanted to make in their beliefs, as well as why this change did or did not occur. I would probably have the students do this as homework, but, again, I would probably use this to drive discussion as a class or in small groups.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Rogers, PoCo, and Second Activity
One thing about the pieces by Rogers et al that intersted me is how Rogers places the onus on the speaker/writer for successful communication. This mirrors what a lot of socilolinguistics literature and I'm wondering if what I learned about communicative theory/anthropology within sociolinguistics (the ethnograpy of speaking) was influenced by Rogers.
In terms of the discussion of postcolonial theory, I would say that its an approach that is far from homogenous, and one can actually argue that Rogers compliments some of what comes out of poco. For example, one text that has been highly influential in poco theory is Homi K. Bhabha's _The Location of Culture_. It covers a lot of ground, but one aspect central to Bhabha is that he was influenced by Derrida (and in a bit we can draw some connections to what Bean has to say, as well). Bhabha's all about decentering what one might call Orientalism, in very much the sense that Edward Said used the term (though many think of Bhabha and Said as oppositional, for reasons too complex to go into here). In _Orientalism_ (which many argue is the foundational text of poco), Said asserted that West (the Occient) produces and implements binary oppositions (here Derrida comes in for Bhabha)--the Occident (the center) and the Orient (the margin, or periphery) being the central one, with the Occident being civilized and enlightened and the Orient savage and ignorant. The West constructs the Orient as the Other through discourses which produce "knowledge" of the Orient and therefore establish power over it (Said was highly influenced by Foucault who was, incidentally, one of Derrida's professors).
Bhabha takes this central premise and seeks to problematize, or disturb, Bhabha binary oppositions--deconstructing the discourses the West has created about the Orient. In doing so, Bhahba believes, a "Third Space" (a key term for Bhabha) can be created where cultures can come into contact, engage and transform one other in a to create a much more complex understanding than is possible with the binary oppositions that existed before. Bhabha advocates hybridity--a new space where both cultures exist in their mutually changed state--and he even speaks of a "multivocality," a multivalent discourse that will exist between cultures in this Third Space. To me, this mirrors Rogers quite nicely.
As for my second activity, the complimentary relationship I've drawn between Rogers and Poco speaks to what Bean talks about in the Strategies he outlines in Chapter 7. Bean talks about Piaget's "decentering"--"Piagetians have shown that a major block to critical thinking is egocentrism, that is, a person's inability to imagine alternative views" and Piaget advocated "decentering--getting students outside of the assumptions of their own worldview" (127). Bean then outlines an assignment where students "role-play unfamiliar points of view" or "what-if situations" (ibid). To me, that's analogous to what Rogers is doing in advocating that a writer state his reader's argument first in such a way that the reader will agree that the writer has summed up the position well, and it's similar to the writing assignments we've all seen in which students are asked to take a controversial issue or argument and argue for position "opposite" from their own.
For me, I think a variation on the theme could be having students construct solid arguments for "both" sides (though I resist the dichotomy) of an argument, so that they can articulate a more synthesized position. In terms of the writing assignment I spoke of earlier, I could have students argue for a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist approach to language. Again, the goal would be for them to understand that while everyone speaks a dialect and that all dialects are equal, there is value in being able to approximate the standard variety of a language (namely, English).
In terms of the discussion of postcolonial theory, I would say that its an approach that is far from homogenous, and one can actually argue that Rogers compliments some of what comes out of poco. For example, one text that has been highly influential in poco theory is Homi K. Bhabha's _The Location of Culture_. It covers a lot of ground, but one aspect central to Bhabha is that he was influenced by Derrida (and in a bit we can draw some connections to what Bean has to say, as well). Bhabha's all about decentering what one might call Orientalism, in very much the sense that Edward Said used the term (though many think of Bhabha and Said as oppositional, for reasons too complex to go into here). In _Orientalism_ (which many argue is the foundational text of poco), Said asserted that West (the Occient) produces and implements binary oppositions (here Derrida comes in for Bhabha)--the Occident (the center) and the Orient (the margin, or periphery) being the central one, with the Occident being civilized and enlightened and the Orient savage and ignorant. The West constructs the Orient as the Other through discourses which produce "knowledge" of the Orient and therefore establish power over it (Said was highly influenced by Foucault who was, incidentally, one of Derrida's professors).
Bhabha takes this central premise and seeks to problematize, or disturb, Bhabha binary oppositions--deconstructing the discourses the West has created about the Orient. In doing so, Bhahba believes, a "Third Space" (a key term for Bhabha) can be created where cultures can come into contact, engage and transform one other in a to create a much more complex understanding than is possible with the binary oppositions that existed before. Bhabha advocates hybridity--a new space where both cultures exist in their mutually changed state--and he even speaks of a "multivocality," a multivalent discourse that will exist between cultures in this Third Space. To me, this mirrors Rogers quite nicely.
As for my second activity, the complimentary relationship I've drawn between Rogers and Poco speaks to what Bean talks about in the Strategies he outlines in Chapter 7. Bean talks about Piaget's "decentering"--"Piagetians have shown that a major block to critical thinking is egocentrism, that is, a person's inability to imagine alternative views" and Piaget advocated "decentering--getting students outside of the assumptions of their own worldview" (127). Bean then outlines an assignment where students "role-play unfamiliar points of view" or "what-if situations" (ibid). To me, that's analogous to what Rogers is doing in advocating that a writer state his reader's argument first in such a way that the reader will agree that the writer has summed up the position well, and it's similar to the writing assignments we've all seen in which students are asked to take a controversial issue or argument and argue for position "opposite" from their own.
For me, I think a variation on the theme could be having students construct solid arguments for "both" sides (though I resist the dichotomy) of an argument, so that they can articulate a more synthesized position. In terms of the writing assignment I spoke of earlier, I could have students argue for a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist approach to language. Again, the goal would be for them to understand that while everyone speaks a dialect and that all dialects are equal, there is value in being able to approximate the standard variety of a language (namely, English).
Vector, Victor? Roger, Roger.
I think the Rogerian argument could be very useful in 1000- I wouldn't use it in every assignment, but he has a point that an argument that understands and addresses its opposition is more powerful than an argument that ignores its opposition. This would tie in well with one of my second-string paper assignments (read a short story, read an article of criticism on the story, disagree with the critic). One goal of the assignment is to encourage students to challenge received wisdom; fully understanding the opposed argument probably would help them to do this, and be able to use the critic's words against him.
Jolly Rogers
I think that Rogerian Argument appeals to my sensibilities as a pacifist. It definitely seems more productive to respect all sides of an argument than to take a position and create what will ultimately sound like an "I'm right, you're an idiot" paper.
I made a comment on one of Leta's posts this week about how it can be dangerous to teach our students to think in terms of "my side and their side," just for the sake of avoiding binary thinking. However, I think there are ways to incorporate Rogerian techniques that allow students to see the complexities of any argument — that is, not all people on "my side" have the same top ten reasons to be on this side that I do, and some of the people on "their side" may have very similar beliefs to my own.
I think this also gestures towards what Claire was saying about Postcolonial theory. It's a field that interests me, as well, so I'm not discounting it by any means, but so much of Postcolonialism is grounded in "self/other." When you get down to it, isn't everyone an other from yourself?
As I was reading the selection on Rogerian Argument, this reminded me of my class activity about writing a letter to the author of a critical text. I think Leta may have also pointed this out — if I require the students to point out some effective, some weak, and some underdeveloped aspects of an essay they read, hopefully they will get a greater understanding and respect for the nuances of scholarly writing. Also, they'll have a good method to incorporate quotes into their papers in an analytical, engaging way that doesn't look like "here's a quote I found."
I made a comment on one of Leta's posts this week about how it can be dangerous to teach our students to think in terms of "my side and their side," just for the sake of avoiding binary thinking. However, I think there are ways to incorporate Rogerian techniques that allow students to see the complexities of any argument — that is, not all people on "my side" have the same top ten reasons to be on this side that I do, and some of the people on "their side" may have very similar beliefs to my own.
I think this also gestures towards what Claire was saying about Postcolonial theory. It's a field that interests me, as well, so I'm not discounting it by any means, but so much of Postcolonialism is grounded in "self/other." When you get down to it, isn't everyone an other from yourself?
As I was reading the selection on Rogerian Argument, this reminded me of my class activity about writing a letter to the author of a critical text. I think Leta may have also pointed this out — if I require the students to point out some effective, some weak, and some underdeveloped aspects of an essay they read, hopefully they will get a greater understanding and respect for the nuances of scholarly writing. Also, they'll have a good method to incorporate quotes into their papers in an analytical, engaging way that doesn't look like "here's a quote I found."
Two activities
For my first writing assignment, I plan to ask students to argue a position concerning how a written fictional text is complicated by its film adaptation. To help students think about the differences between written and visual texts, I could stage a debate. The students could argue which is the better means of communication: books or films. This activity, as Anne Curzan and Lisa Damour suggest, will encourage students to challenge each other’s beliefs about the effectiveness of each medium. Besides the debate, I could also have each student write a short personal narrative. Then I could have each one write a short screenplay and storyboard for a movie adaptation of the story. This activity, as John Bean suggests, would encourage critical thinking about the advantages and limitations of a film adaptation of a book. Both activities will help the students discover each medium’s strengths and weaknesses, giving them possible explanations to account for why and how the book they choose to write their papers on differs from its film adaptation. The goal of this writing assignment is for students to learn how to analyze two texts. Part of analysis is identifying the qualities of a particular text. In this case, analysis means recognizing how a visual text works and that it works differently than a visual text.
Arguing with Mr. Rogers
Regarding his sympathetic method of argumentation, Rogers asserts:
"This procedure gradually achieves mutual communication. Mutual communication tends to be pointed toward solving a problem rather than toward attacking a person or group. It leads to a situation in which I see how the problem appears to you, as well as to me, and you see how it appears to me, as well as to you. Thus accurately and realistically defined, the problem is almost certain to yield to intelligent attack, or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably accepted as such" (Rogers 109).
I can't help but think that this is more than a little naive when applied to certain scenarios. How, for instance, would Rogerian argument have been applied to Hitler? "We understand, Adolph, how you feel about the 'Jewish situation,' but we feel differently and you should respect that." Or how about in relation to a group with a cult-like, irrational belief structure: "We understand, Dr. Zamzam, that you believe the Goat God will be returning soon, but we think that human sacrifice is wrong and you should respect that." It seems that the Rogerian form of argumentation presupposes a fundamentally "rational" and "equitable" human nature, but this presupposition is not always valid. Often, in fact, disagreements are irreconcilable and differences are not reducible.
Some other obvious examples would be the Evolution/Creation schism and the abortion debate. Both sides of each argument start from irreconcilable first principles. Then, they reason from those first principles to opposite conclusions. I would not disagree that trying to understand both sides of the issue is a good idea, but it seems false to contend that disagreements that are "in part insoluble . . . will be comfortably accepted as such." Neither side is likely to just roll over and say, "Well, let's agree to disagree." The main reason for this is that doing so would have legal implications. If the evolutionists decided to "lay off," creationism would likely end up being taught in public schools. And for the evolutionary scientist, who sees the "creationist" theory as a piece of abject, theological chicanery that explains nothing, this would be completely unacceptable.
In any case, I am not arguing that traditional forms of argumentation are any more effective than the Rogerian form regarding these types of issues and situations. But, it seems to me that stripping the argumentative process of "emotion" may not always be a good idea. Rogerian argument seems to suggest a kind of detached, epistemological relativism with which I disagree. I do not believe that both sides in every argument are valid. Sometimes one of them is wrong -- utterly. I don't believe that pretending to empathize with an obviously absurd position is necessary. Sometimes, particularly when dealing with people you know to be relatively sane, Rogerian argument could be extremely productive. But Rogers seems to want to apply this form of argumentation to nearly everything (including Cold War Russia!), and I just don't buy his moral optimism.
"This procedure gradually achieves mutual communication. Mutual communication tends to be pointed toward solving a problem rather than toward attacking a person or group. It leads to a situation in which I see how the problem appears to you, as well as to me, and you see how it appears to me, as well as to you. Thus accurately and realistically defined, the problem is almost certain to yield to intelligent attack, or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably accepted as such" (Rogers 109).
I can't help but think that this is more than a little naive when applied to certain scenarios. How, for instance, would Rogerian argument have been applied to Hitler? "We understand, Adolph, how you feel about the 'Jewish situation,' but we feel differently and you should respect that." Or how about in relation to a group with a cult-like, irrational belief structure: "We understand, Dr. Zamzam, that you believe the Goat God will be returning soon, but we think that human sacrifice is wrong and you should respect that." It seems that the Rogerian form of argumentation presupposes a fundamentally "rational" and "equitable" human nature, but this presupposition is not always valid. Often, in fact, disagreements are irreconcilable and differences are not reducible.
Some other obvious examples would be the Evolution/Creation schism and the abortion debate. Both sides of each argument start from irreconcilable first principles. Then, they reason from those first principles to opposite conclusions. I would not disagree that trying to understand both sides of the issue is a good idea, but it seems false to contend that disagreements that are "in part insoluble . . . will be comfortably accepted as such." Neither side is likely to just roll over and say, "Well, let's agree to disagree." The main reason for this is that doing so would have legal implications. If the evolutionists decided to "lay off," creationism would likely end up being taught in public schools. And for the evolutionary scientist, who sees the "creationist" theory as a piece of abject, theological chicanery that explains nothing, this would be completely unacceptable.
In any case, I am not arguing that traditional forms of argumentation are any more effective than the Rogerian form regarding these types of issues and situations. But, it seems to me that stripping the argumentative process of "emotion" may not always be a good idea. Rogerian argument seems to suggest a kind of detached, epistemological relativism with which I disagree. I do not believe that both sides in every argument are valid. Sometimes one of them is wrong -- utterly. I don't believe that pretending to empathize with an obviously absurd position is necessary. Sometimes, particularly when dealing with people you know to be relatively sane, Rogerian argument could be extremely productive. But Rogers seems to want to apply this form of argumentation to nearly everything (including Cold War Russia!), and I just don't buy his moral optimism.
Roger, Roger, Roger.
I liked many facets of the Rogerian argument, most notably the writer’s/speaker’s attempt to remove the sense of threat by attempting to demonstrate similarities between two parties. I felt encouraged by an approach that emphasized empathy and understanding, qualities I feel are lacking in many areas of life, not just student writing. Not only would a Rogerian assignment promote detailed and thorough analysis, I would hope that this willingness to consider both sides of an issue might carry over to other fields. This is why I might consider using the Rogerian model for a paper assignment that asked students to address both sides of a contemporary political issue.
However, I was a bit skeptical of certain aspects of the Rogerian Argument in regards to student writing, specifically for English 1000. Teaching students to write sensitively as possible about an opposing viewpoint seems like a difficult task. How can you teach a student not to judge the reader’s position? In the Writing Lab this semester, I’ve seen several students that were decidedly judgmental and very stubborn (especially when it comes to papers that address a politically-charged issue). I met resistance and even disgust when I asked these students to consider the validity of the opposing point of view, if only for argument’s sake. While a student with such entrenched views can often turn out a very well argued traditional paper, an essay following the Rogerian model might prove incredibly problematic.
However, I was a bit skeptical of certain aspects of the Rogerian Argument in regards to student writing, specifically for English 1000. Teaching students to write sensitively as possible about an opposing viewpoint seems like a difficult task. How can you teach a student not to judge the reader’s position? In the Writing Lab this semester, I’ve seen several students that were decidedly judgmental and very stubborn (especially when it comes to papers that address a politically-charged issue). I met resistance and even disgust when I asked these students to consider the validity of the opposing point of view, if only for argument’s sake. While a student with such entrenched views can often turn out a very well argued traditional paper, an essay following the Rogerian model might prove incredibly problematic.
What do you know?
I had no idea when I wrote my Paper 1 assignment that I was using Rogerian theory. The assignment, oft-discussed, is for students to argue against thier own positions on given controversial topics (abortion, gay marriage, excess taxation, etc). As I mentioned in response to Katie, I've considered giving students a chance to flip back to their previous or new position, given how their research has changed their opinions. I hesitate to do that, however, because I think that it will place less emphasis on growth of the paper/writing than on the shift of opinion. Instead, I think that I will give them a chance to freewrite, either in class or out of class, about their new opinions.
What do you know?
I had no idea when I wrote my Paper 1 assignment that I was using Rogerian theory. The assignment, oft-discussed, is for students to argue against thier own positions on given controversial topics (abortion, gay marriage, excess taxation, etc). As I mentioned in response to Katie, I've considered giving students a chance to flip back to their previous or new position, given how their research has changed their opinions. I hesitate to do that, however, because I think that it will place less emphasis on growth of the paper/writing than on the shift of opinion. Instead, I think that I will give them a chance to freewrite, either in class or out of class, about their new opinions.
More Rogerian argument
On one hand, I have to say that I liked the peices on Rogerian argument. I like the idea of fostering empathy in students. That seems like a goal that corresponds to teaching critical thinking and analysis--maybe one needs to learn empathy before one can think outside of one's own experience.
On the other hand, I can't get out of the postcolonial mindset of last semester, which I had two simultaneous postcolonial theory classes. I wonder about the idea that one can experience something from someone else's point of view (particularly that one can experience something from another point of view that is separated from yourself by race, class, history, etc). Postcolonial theory would say no, and that its arrogant to think that one can. So I'm not convinced that Rogerian argument would be equally appealing to the entire world, but I still find a lot to like in it.
I particularly like the idea that Rogers wants to remove the idea of threat; I think anything that can help to reduce the amount of fear and hostility that students experience is probably good. On yet another hand, I wonder if it's arrogant to try to change people.
Ultimately, yes, I will probably rework at least one of my assignments in light of the Rogerian readings. Not totally sure how I'll do this but I think it'll be good to think it through.
On the other hand, I can't get out of the postcolonial mindset of last semester, which I had two simultaneous postcolonial theory classes. I wonder about the idea that one can experience something from someone else's point of view (particularly that one can experience something from another point of view that is separated from yourself by race, class, history, etc). Postcolonial theory would say no, and that its arrogant to think that one can. So I'm not convinced that Rogerian argument would be equally appealing to the entire world, but I still find a lot to like in it.
I particularly like the idea that Rogers wants to remove the idea of threat; I think anything that can help to reduce the amount of fear and hostility that students experience is probably good. On yet another hand, I wonder if it's arrogant to try to change people.
Ultimately, yes, I will probably rework at least one of my assignments in light of the Rogerian readings. Not totally sure how I'll do this but I think it'll be good to think it through.
Rogerian Argument
Rogerian argument does seem appropriate to teach. I think that it is important for students to understand that knowing their “opponents” point of view does seem to be one of the best ways to counter it. I would possibly utilize Rogerian argument for an in-class writing assignment, however I don’t think I would put much emphasis on it.
Rogerian argument immediate struck me as having invaluable assets to verbal argumentation, specifically debate, and persuasive writing. Though my last comment seems a little off, I’ll try to clean it up… For my class assignments I don’t want a student to sell me on their point of view, I simply want them to be able to articulate it and support it, whereas I think the Rogerian argument seeks to sell a non-believer something. Having a basic understanding of Rogerian argument seems that it would be best helpful (at least in the ways in which I want my class to go) in the brainstorming and early writing stages to help students identify the holes in their argument where “opponents” would be able to monopolize.
Rogerian argument immediate struck me as having invaluable assets to verbal argumentation, specifically debate, and persuasive writing. Though my last comment seems a little off, I’ll try to clean it up… For my class assignments I don’t want a student to sell me on their point of view, I simply want them to be able to articulate it and support it, whereas I think the Rogerian argument seeks to sell a non-believer something. Having a basic understanding of Rogerian argument seems that it would be best helpful (at least in the ways in which I want my class to go) in the brainstorming and early writing stages to help students identify the holes in their argument where “opponents” would be able to monopolize.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Activities
I am of the opinion that students need lots of information and examples to help them learn to write. One thing that I think I need to spend some time discussing very early on is plagiarism. I want to make it clear to them precisely what plagiarism is and what is wrong with it (besides that they will get in trouble for it).
Thinking about plagiarism, I was given a "test" in my college teaching class at the beginning of the semester which asked us whether each item had to be cited or not. We discussed it briefly afterwards, but there was also a list of explanations that was handed out, stating why a student needed, for example, to cite a statement from his/her mother in certain situations. It is my hope that this discussion will lead us to our first discussion of good research methods, as I found myself answering some questions incorrectly because I thought they should be cited in the interest of responsible scholarship, even if not for intellectual property reasons. I might ask them to write something previous to or in response to this activity, but that it is integral to make sure that they understand academic honesty.
Another assignment that I'm planning in leading up one of my assignments is a discussion based upon research questions and forming valid/interesting questions. I thought about maybe tweaking the popular drinking game "Questions" to fit this purpose. The point would be for students to see how each question could lead to a subsequent and/or more relevant/interesting research question. So, it would go something like this: I would start by asking, "why was the weather so awful this winter?" to which someone would respond, "what do you mean by 'awful?" to which someone might say, "Is cold weather necessarily bad?" which might prompt, "Was this winter significantly colder than previous winters?" which might eventually lead to questions about global warming/climate change, peak oil (rising energy costs), or the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings in Georgia. The point would be for them to see the slew of ways that they can approach a topic and the ways that they can make said topic relevant for themselves and their interests.
Thoughts?
Thinking about plagiarism, I was given a "test" in my college teaching class at the beginning of the semester which asked us whether each item had to be cited or not. We discussed it briefly afterwards, but there was also a list of explanations that was handed out, stating why a student needed, for example, to cite a statement from his/her mother in certain situations. It is my hope that this discussion will lead us to our first discussion of good research methods, as I found myself answering some questions incorrectly because I thought they should be cited in the interest of responsible scholarship, even if not for intellectual property reasons. I might ask them to write something previous to or in response to this activity, but that it is integral to make sure that they understand academic honesty.
Another assignment that I'm planning in leading up one of my assignments is a discussion based upon research questions and forming valid/interesting questions. I thought about maybe tweaking the popular drinking game "Questions" to fit this purpose. The point would be for students to see how each question could lead to a subsequent and/or more relevant/interesting research question. So, it would go something like this: I would start by asking, "why was the weather so awful this winter?" to which someone would respond, "what do you mean by 'awful?" to which someone might say, "Is cold weather necessarily bad?" which might prompt, "Was this winter significantly colder than previous winters?" which might eventually lead to questions about global warming/climate change, peak oil (rising energy costs), or the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings in Georgia. The point would be for them to see the slew of ways that they can approach a topic and the ways that they can make said topic relevant for themselves and their interests.
Thoughts?
Extracting Themes
I plan to spend a good deal of time during the lead-up to the first assignment explaining what it means to "isolate a theme" from a larger heterogeneous piece of text. One early in-class assignment I plan to use involves the brief introduction to Fast Food Nation, which brings out some of the main concepts that will keep returning during the course: illusion/reality in particular. The section starts:
"Cheyenne Mountain sits on the eastern slope of Colorado's Front Range, rising steeply from the prairie and overlooking the city of Colorado Springs. From a distance, the mountain appears beautiful and serene, dotted with rocky outcroppings, scrub oak, and ponderosa pine. It looks like the backdrop of an old Hollywood western, just another gorgeous Rocky Mountain vista. And yet Cheyenne Mountain is hardly pristine. One of the nation's most important military installations lies deep within it, housing units of the North American Aerospace Command, the Air Force Space Command, and the United States Space Command" (Schlosser 1)
This juxtaposition of tranquil facade and violent reality will be central to the course. Since the introduction is only 2 pages long, I'll photocopy it and bring it to class as a handout. The first part of class will be dedicated to a discussion of what a "theme" actually is, how to isolate one, etc. After that, I'll hand out the intro to Fast Food Nation and give them some time to read it over. I will ask them to do some free writing that articulates, in their own words, what the major theme of the passage is and why it might be important. Then we'll discuss the section as a group and brainstorm on the board, generating as many interpretations as possible. I would like to reinforce, in addition to what it means to extract a theme, both the plurality of possible interpretations and the importance of providing evidence in support of a claim.
Because this section also applies to one of the central themes of White Noise, I think it will be a particularly useful exercise. They will have already begun reading the novel, so the rest of the class will be dedicated to relating the work we've done in-class to the novel itself. Hopefully, this will convey how themes are universal and that understanding how to identify and explore them is an invaluable tool.
"Cheyenne Mountain sits on the eastern slope of Colorado's Front Range, rising steeply from the prairie and overlooking the city of Colorado Springs. From a distance, the mountain appears beautiful and serene, dotted with rocky outcroppings, scrub oak, and ponderosa pine. It looks like the backdrop of an old Hollywood western, just another gorgeous Rocky Mountain vista. And yet Cheyenne Mountain is hardly pristine. One of the nation's most important military installations lies deep within it, housing units of the North American Aerospace Command, the Air Force Space Command, and the United States Space Command" (Schlosser 1)
This juxtaposition of tranquil facade and violent reality will be central to the course. Since the introduction is only 2 pages long, I'll photocopy it and bring it to class as a handout. The first part of class will be dedicated to a discussion of what a "theme" actually is, how to isolate one, etc. After that, I'll hand out the intro to Fast Food Nation and give them some time to read it over. I will ask them to do some free writing that articulates, in their own words, what the major theme of the passage is and why it might be important. Then we'll discuss the section as a group and brainstorm on the board, generating as many interpretations as possible. I would like to reinforce, in addition to what it means to extract a theme, both the plurality of possible interpretations and the importance of providing evidence in support of a claim.
Because this section also applies to one of the central themes of White Noise, I think it will be a particularly useful exercise. They will have already begun reading the novel, so the rest of the class will be dedicated to relating the work we've done in-class to the novel itself. Hopefully, this will convey how themes are universal and that understanding how to identify and explore them is an invaluable tool.
Assignments
Disclaimer!!! I love in-class exploratory assignments, so be prepared to see many from me.
One assignment I’m tweaking out will go something like this; it will be an in-class exploratory writing assignment which will get students to writing and thinking more in-depth about the first paper. I’m considering having students take one of the course packet essays, which they will have read already for class and most likely we will have discussed briefly during the first half of the class period, and I’m going to have them formulate a thesis that is opposite to that of the critic’s. Along with the thesis, students will need to list at least three supporting facts which they will pull form their own knowledge, as well as other class readings.
I’m hoping that this assignment will assist students further in their understanding of argument. As another person that is worried about one-sided arguments, I want students to understand that anyone can formulate an argument, not just the “scholars” whom we often deem as always right. I want them to understand that their voice and opinion is just as important, with a major emphasis on the fact that regardless of what say and think, they have to support it.
A second assignment I am considering accompanies Paper #2. Students will be put in random groups; in which each group will have a predetermined factor that critics attribute/hold responsible to the failed/slow response to Hurricane Katrina such as FEMA, the broken levees, etc. Each group will need to argue for and against why their reason did and did not contribute to the response, citing class texts as their argument’s support.
With this assignment I hope to get the students’ minds working about the middle section of the class which focuses on race, gender, and class as an intersection of each other, with Hurricane Katrina being the prime example.
One assignment I’m tweaking out will go something like this; it will be an in-class exploratory writing assignment which will get students to writing and thinking more in-depth about the first paper. I’m considering having students take one of the course packet essays, which they will have read already for class and most likely we will have discussed briefly during the first half of the class period, and I’m going to have them formulate a thesis that is opposite to that of the critic’s. Along with the thesis, students will need to list at least three supporting facts which they will pull form their own knowledge, as well as other class readings.
I’m hoping that this assignment will assist students further in their understanding of argument. As another person that is worried about one-sided arguments, I want students to understand that anyone can formulate an argument, not just the “scholars” whom we often deem as always right. I want them to understand that their voice and opinion is just as important, with a major emphasis on the fact that regardless of what say and think, they have to support it.
A second assignment I am considering accompanies Paper #2. Students will be put in random groups; in which each group will have a predetermined factor that critics attribute/hold responsible to the failed/slow response to Hurricane Katrina such as FEMA, the broken levees, etc. Each group will need to argue for and against why their reason did and did not contribute to the response, citing class texts as their argument’s support.
With this assignment I hope to get the students’ minds working about the middle section of the class which focuses on race, gender, and class as an intersection of each other, with Hurricane Katrina being the prime example.
Curzan/Damour, Rogers, and a little more Bean
First, the Bean. I love this: under the heading "Ask Students to Question Your Lectures" (172), he sums up by saying "The point is to help students see your lectures as arguments rather than as mere information." I agree with this mindset whole-heartedly, and I think it dovetails nicely with the what I took from Curzan/Damour and the articles by and about Rogers.
In their discussion of class preparation, Curzan/Damour discuss facilitating student notes by putting "an outline of the major points on the board so that students know where you are going" (34). I think doing a hand-out would help even more--Dr. Looser does this for 8240 (when I attend, any way) and I love it--she also includes "announcements" covering the "bureaucratic details" that Curzan/Damour point out need to be considered (36). In general, I think pulling back the curtain and letting students seeing "the man" that is our pedagogy and ideology can be productive in facilitating their critical thinking, reading and writing.
The articles by and about Rogers speak to this orientation, as well (for me, any way). The central idea of creating better communciation through writer/speaker first stating their understanding of the reader/listener's position compliments how teachers and students can facilitate learning by first stating and engaging each other's positions, both in terms of "meta-learning/teaching" of everyday discourse in the classroom (what's included above) and also in terms of assignments--what the teacher is looking for in terms of assigning grades to student writing, what the student in turn means in what they write and how they perceive that it approximates the teacher's expectations, etc.
In their discussion of class preparation, Curzan/Damour discuss facilitating student notes by putting "an outline of the major points on the board so that students know where you are going" (34). I think doing a hand-out would help even more--Dr. Looser does this for 8240 (when I attend, any way) and I love it--she also includes "announcements" covering the "bureaucratic details" that Curzan/Damour point out need to be considered (36). In general, I think pulling back the curtain and letting students seeing "the man" that is our pedagogy and ideology can be productive in facilitating their critical thinking, reading and writing.
The articles by and about Rogers speak to this orientation, as well (for me, any way). The central idea of creating better communciation through writer/speaker first stating their understanding of the reader/listener's position compliments how teachers and students can facilitate learning by first stating and engaging each other's positions, both in terms of "meta-learning/teaching" of everyday discourse in the classroom (what's included above) and also in terms of assignments--what the teacher is looking for in terms of assigning grades to student writing, what the student in turn means in what they write and how they perceive that it approximates the teacher's expectations, etc.
The Assignment And Class Activities
I am thinking now about what kind of activities could be better in class to help students with my assignment. It is of a general kind. I offer to ponder on the topic about the role of visual media and books in education (e.g. how helpful textbooks and educational movies can be). The task aims to teach seeing multiple perspectives and complex cases when it is necessary to argue about advantages and disadvantages of both sides.
The activity I suggest here is in-class discussion of the topic but I am not feeling easy about shaping it. I cannot imagine how many students could say that simply “visual aids are better” or “reading a novel is the same as watching a movie” and how many of them could see the complexity of an issue. I think an instructor can be a devil’s advocate in this case. New patterns can appear with discussing it with students from different majors. It can be narrowed in many directions such as the role of visual aids in a particular discipline etc. I myself did not have problems with writing an essay but now it is hard to predict how successful a discussion would be.
The activity I suggest here is in-class discussion of the topic but I am not feeling easy about shaping it. I cannot imagine how many students could say that simply “visual aids are better” or “reading a novel is the same as watching a movie” and how many of them could see the complexity of an issue. I think an instructor can be a devil’s advocate in this case. New patterns can appear with discussing it with students from different majors. It can be narrowed in many directions such as the role of visual aids in a particular discipline etc. I myself did not have problems with writing an essay but now it is hard to predict how successful a discussion would be.
My First Activity
I like the idea Bean presents in the beginning of the chapter teacher as facilitator/coach--it speaks to my own orientation, as one of my major influences is Paulo Freire (_Pedagogy of the Oppressed_), who Dr. Strickland discussed in class a couple of weeks ago. Borrowing from another blog post for another class, I'll say here that Freire possessed a strong aversion to the student-teacher dichotomy of traditional pedagogy. He sought to democratize the classroom, to *enact* democracy as a pedagogical tool in part by minimizing the authority role of the teacher. One simple means to this end, in my opinion, is the acknowledgment that a teacher--in the traditional sense--can also be a student in their own classroom, learning from their students as much as their students learn from them. Students can take on teacher roles within the classroom, just as Bean discusses in terms of providing means for active thinking and learning. For example, Strategy 2 from Chapter 7--having students take on "a teacher's role" in order to help them “escape the student-to-examiner role” that can be “debilitating” (123)--is one example of operationalizing this approach.
With that in mind, one activity that I might use to teach my first formal writing assignment could involve having them write to a hypothetical “new learner” about the discussion on linguistics and standard language that I plan to include early in the semester or do a summary of the discussion—something that helps them synthesize what’s covered. The material is intended to help them understand what standard language is and how it emerges. One question, then, is who determines it (English, for example, has no academy—despite several attempts to create one—as Spanish and French do). It’s arbitrary(following Saussure’s discussion) and usually historically-determined, based on issues of power, (Standard British English—and by extension Standard American English—is based on one of the five dialects that have historically existed in England, the Southeast dialect, because it was the one spoken in London and the surrounding region and so it was what was spoken by the merchant class and government officials—those in positions of economic and governmental power). A standard language can also only be an approximation (no one speaks a standard language, for example). I want to decenter prescriptivist grammar in order to then show that even though it’s an arbitrary, cultural construct, the value in being able to “perform” it is quite real (doing so leads to advancement in education, one’s career, etc.). The idea is to open up the discussion and find an intersection for those who have strong verbal and writing skills already--and/or those who might have strong prescriptivist views on language use--and those who don’t have strong skills in these areas and/or those who necessarily see the value of learning how to write in a way that approximates the standard. If I can convey this view, I believe it’ll set the tone for productive facilitations of writing skills throughout the semester and so can only help to improve the outcomes of the formal writing assignments.
With that in mind, one activity that I might use to teach my first formal writing assignment could involve having them write to a hypothetical “new learner” about the discussion on linguistics and standard language that I plan to include early in the semester or do a summary of the discussion—something that helps them synthesize what’s covered. The material is intended to help them understand what standard language is and how it emerges. One question, then, is who determines it (English, for example, has no academy—despite several attempts to create one—as Spanish and French do). It’s arbitrary(following Saussure’s discussion) and usually historically-determined, based on issues of power, (Standard British English—and by extension Standard American English—is based on one of the five dialects that have historically existed in England, the Southeast dialect, because it was the one spoken in London and the surrounding region and so it was what was spoken by the merchant class and government officials—those in positions of economic and governmental power). A standard language can also only be an approximation (no one speaks a standard language, for example). I want to decenter prescriptivist grammar in order to then show that even though it’s an arbitrary, cultural construct, the value in being able to “perform” it is quite real (doing so leads to advancement in education, one’s career, etc.). The idea is to open up the discussion and find an intersection for those who have strong verbal and writing skills already--and/or those who might have strong prescriptivist views on language use--and those who don’t have strong skills in these areas and/or those who necessarily see the value of learning how to write in a way that approximates the standard. If I can convey this view, I believe it’ll set the tone for productive facilitations of writing skills throughout the semester and so can only help to improve the outcomes of the formal writing assignments.
Mr. (Carl) Rogers' Neighborhood
Like James Kastely, I too think that argument is problematic. I agree that an argument presented as a written text, distributed to an audience that neither knows the writer nor can have him or her present to discuss his or her position is relatively powerless compared to a spoken argument, present in a face-to-face conversation. Rogerian argument seeks to empower the written argument by bringing the writer and the reader closer together, to do away with the conflict between the writer and reader.
This is the goal of some of the assignments I have seen students bring into the writing lab. The instructor asks the student to begin by finding a written argument (a newspaper editorial, a piece of literary criticism, etc.) and summarize it. Then, the student must write an essay arguing how his or her experience (life experience in the case of the editorial, experience with the primary text in the case of the literary criticism) contradicts, complicates, or contributes to the original argument. Assuming that the student’s audience is familiar with the original argument (perhaps even convinced by it), the student is presenting a Rogerian argument by presenting an alternative viewpoint without threatening the reader’s stable image.
For my second assignment, I would consider asking students to engage in this approach, calling for them to make powerful arguments by considering Rogerian rhetorical theory. Here, I already ask students to find an argumentative text (allowing them to choose not just editorials and literary criticism but also movies and books). Instead of asking them to simply analyze the argument, I could ask them to summarize it, opening the lines of communication between writer and reader, then ask them to make some kind of contribution to it. My only hesitation is that for students to argue how their experience contradicts, complicates, or contributes to the original argument, they might have to do some more research so that they can have ample experience with that issue.
This is the goal of some of the assignments I have seen students bring into the writing lab. The instructor asks the student to begin by finding a written argument (a newspaper editorial, a piece of literary criticism, etc.) and summarize it. Then, the student must write an essay arguing how his or her experience (life experience in the case of the editorial, experience with the primary text in the case of the literary criticism) contradicts, complicates, or contributes to the original argument. Assuming that the student’s audience is familiar with the original argument (perhaps even convinced by it), the student is presenting a Rogerian argument by presenting an alternative viewpoint without threatening the reader’s stable image.
For my second assignment, I would consider asking students to engage in this approach, calling for them to make powerful arguments by considering Rogerian rhetorical theory. Here, I already ask students to find an argumentative text (allowing them to choose not just editorials and literary criticism but also movies and books). Instead of asking them to simply analyze the argument, I could ask them to summarize it, opening the lines of communication between writer and reader, then ask them to make some kind of contribution to it. My only hesitation is that for students to argue how their experience contradicts, complicates, or contributes to the original argument, they might have to do some more research so that they can have ample experience with that issue.
Poooooems!
Like Joe, my first assignment involves poetry, something that seems to befuddle or just bore many freshmen. I never really care much for poetry when I was younger either, so I’m hoping to offer students some new approaches to poetry. Bean’s detailed list of different lessons offered a lot of fresh, exciting ways to teach poetry in the classroom. As I mentioned in my comments to Joe’s post, I plan on incorporating a lot of in-class poetry analysis through freewrites and discussion. I want to make sure students are comfortable speaking of and writing about poetry before diving into the first paper assignment. While I’m sure some more standard freewrites requiring summaries/explanations of certain terms will be helpful (i.e. “Consider the following lines from Bob Smith’s his poem, ‘Spaghetti Rocks My Socks Off’: ‘I love noodles / that are like ferrets / roaming the ocean floor and eating bananas’. Define and explain what poetry devices are used in these lines”. The real example, of course, will be much better!). I think some of the other lessons, however, could be stimulating and maybe even (gasp!) fun. For example, while the Data-Provided Assignments are geared toward the sciences, it could be fruitful to apply this to poetry. I could provide a sort of Mad Libs type exercise that required students to string together a poem from the word/phrase bank provided (this would be the data). The students would have to identify, when piecing the poem together, each poetic device. Sharing the poems aloud in class would not only solidify the concepts, but would also be pretty funny. I’ll probably have them write a poem of their own as well, utilizing a certain number of poetic devices which they would identify and explain in a separate summary. The fist lessons Bean describes, those that link course concepts to a student’s personal experience or previously existing knowledge, might be a useful tool to introduce poetry. I’d like students, for an out-of-class assignment (perhaps the first piece of homework) to find examples of poetic terms or devices in the everyday world, whether it be in a commercial, scrawled on a bathroom stall, contained in a restaurant menu, etc.
Rogerian Argument
I think that Rogerian Argument should be one of the things that we teach comp. students, if only for the fact that it emphasizes the fact that arguments are intended to reach and influence an audience, and unless you really just want to preach to the choir, you need to find common ground with those who oppose you. Rogerian Argument assumes that the opposition is going to be hostile to your proposal, and deliberately attempts to find common ground with the opposition before doing anything "threatening" which would put off the other side. I think this is essential, as many student papers that take a stance will take a bandwagon approach, for example:"Everyone agrees that abortion is wrong" which automatically creates a situation in which the only people who will agree with your stance are people who already agree with it. Those who disagree, or may be on the fence, immediately assume a hostile stance to what you will propose because you have not included their viewpoint in your claim. I think that Freshmen come to college with a lot of generalities ingrained about how the world works, and what other people's attitudes are. The assume, and presume, too much. Getting them to consider that the audience they are writing to may be resistant to their approach is important, and getting them to consider that those who disagree with the ones they should be trying the hardest to reach is important.
That being said, I think it is important to realize that perhaps the best argument incorporates the audience-sensivity of Rogerian with the concise point-by-point attack of classical.
That being said, I think it is important to realize that perhaps the best argument incorporates the audience-sensivity of Rogerian with the concise point-by-point attack of classical.
activities to teach paper
Activity 1) The Candy Game (which I stole from Shelley Ingram, and which she got from someone else, who stole it from someone else, etc). I hope to try this in-class game about 2 weeks from the due date of the 1st submission of the paper, in order to teach analysis and argumentation. I've talked about this game on the blog before so I won't reiterate too much. The class divides in half, each half gets a bag of candy which they have to analyze for its qualities. After coming up with a (thesis) statement ("this is the best candy in the world"), each group pitches its candy to the other group, the other group argues back, and refutes claims, etc. This takes about 20 minutes, and allows the instructor to draw direct paralells between what the student did in class, and what the student is expected to do in the paper. My hope is that students will see the connections between word choice, talking points, thesis statement and claim, etc. After observing this assignment last semester, I do think it works.
Activity 2) Before assigning the first paper, I will ask the students to do an in-class writing assignment. Students will be instructed to take a position on an issue, explain what they think and why they think that, and then hand the writing in. After students hand in this paragraph I will assign their first paper and instruct them to argue a different position on the issue they have just written about. I hope that the in-class writing assignment will help students define a topic, figure out what they think they believe, and identify why they think that. I hope that this assignment will combine many of the advantages that Bean describes, as well as give students a focused assignment for their first paper. After peer-reviewing last week I have many questions (that I have to think on) about this activity but I think the basic premise will still be helpful.
Activity 2) Before assigning the first paper, I will ask the students to do an in-class writing assignment. Students will be instructed to take a position on an issue, explain what they think and why they think that, and then hand the writing in. After students hand in this paragraph I will assign their first paper and instruct them to argue a different position on the issue they have just written about. I hope that the in-class writing assignment will help students define a topic, figure out what they think they believe, and identify why they think that. I hope that this assignment will combine many of the advantages that Bean describes, as well as give students a focused assignment for their first paper. After peer-reviewing last week I have many questions (that I have to think on) about this activity but I think the basic premise will still be helpful.
Class Activities
I had already been thinking about some ways to incorporate non-graded (or at least non-formal) writing into my course. One that I thought of already is for the final essay on my syllabus, in which the student picks a controversy in his/her intended field of study (or a current event if s/h has absolutely no idea what s/he will declare as a major). I plan to have the students use outside sources to back up their theses (like you do...), and for one of the articles they read, I will have them write a one- to two-page letter to the author. I will have them mention points on which they agree with the author, points on which they disagree, and topics they thought were underdeveloped or neglected. From this assignment, I intend to demonstrate that writers should not simply drop a quote into a paper, but should find an analytical or argumentative standpoint by which to incorporate the quote.
A second activity that I have been toying with that would work closer to the beginning of the semester is about analyzing biases. I would have the students freewrite for five to ten minutes about an instance in which they experienced prejudice — towards themselves or towards someone else. I would share an experience of my own to break the ice, then ask for other examples. We would compile a list of what type of discrimination was exhibited (race, gender, social status, age, etc.), and hopefully this would get the students thinking about the different guises of prejudice. Perhaps there would be examples the other students had not thought of as discriminatory, or maybe we would explore reasons why such stereotypes exist.
A second activity that I have been toying with that would work closer to the beginning of the semester is about analyzing biases. I would have the students freewrite for five to ten minutes about an instance in which they experienced prejudice — towards themselves or towards someone else. I would share an experience of my own to break the ice, then ask for other examples. We would compile a list of what type of discrimination was exhibited (race, gender, social status, age, etc.), and hopefully this would get the students thinking about the different guises of prejudice. Perhaps there would be examples the other students had not thought of as discriminatory, or maybe we would explore reasons why such stereotypes exist.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Activities for paper
So I've got two activities for the paper assignment (Poetry Analysis).
I recognize that many students will not have worked extensively with reading poetry, and may find it intimidating even if they have. So the goal of both activities is to increase comfort level and experience with poetry analysis. The first assignment calls for them to read and summarize an essay on reading a poem- the one I've chosen is actually called "Reading a Poem," chapter 1 from _An Introduction to Poetry_, by X.J. Kennedy. It's a good intro for someone who has little experience with poetry, and also discusses the difference between topic and theme, and the difference between personal opinion and plausible interpretation. So it presents a good model for the sort of reading I'll want the students to employ. Reading it and writing a summary out of class should provide them with a base for in-class discussion of the essay, and leads in to the next activity.
Second is in-class practice of poetry analysis- and lots of it! Mostly with freewriting + discussion, although after 2 days of practice I'll have them do one for small points and hand it in, so I can check on those who don't participate as much. All this would prep them for the kind of close analysis I'd expect in the paper.
I recognize that many students will not have worked extensively with reading poetry, and may find it intimidating even if they have. So the goal of both activities is to increase comfort level and experience with poetry analysis. The first assignment calls for them to read and summarize an essay on reading a poem- the one I've chosen is actually called "Reading a Poem," chapter 1 from _An Introduction to Poetry_, by X.J. Kennedy. It's a good intro for someone who has little experience with poetry, and also discusses the difference between topic and theme, and the difference between personal opinion and plausible interpretation. So it presents a good model for the sort of reading I'll want the students to employ. Reading it and writing a summary out of class should provide them with a base for in-class discussion of the essay, and leads in to the next activity.
Second is in-class practice of poetry analysis- and lots of it! Mostly with freewriting + discussion, although after 2 days of practice I'll have them do one for small points and hand it in, so I can check on those who don't participate as much. All this would prep them for the kind of close analysis I'd expect in the paper.
Paper vs Poem
While I participated in few essay workshops as an undergraduate, I did sit through many weekly poetry workshops. While formal essay obviously has different parameters than a poem, I feel my experiences could still be helpful when designing workshops for English 1000.
The paper workshops were overall pretty useless; most of the students offered little or no comments about the major concerns of the paper (i.e. a strong thesis, organization, etc). If I did receive extensive comments, they were usually pretty worthless or flat-out laughable. Interactions with fellow group members were pretty uncomfortable and stilted as well. Occasionally a great group would form that was actually productive, but that was definitely an exception to the rule. The workshops seemed designed, more than anything, to fill up class time, or at least that was the general attitude of the students. No one seemed invested in anyone else’s paper. I too exhibited this sort of apathetic approach at times, especially when the papers I read were quite obviously not trying to very hard to address the assignment, or were just plain boring. Even when I was genuinely interest in improving a classmate’s paper, the awkward silences were enough to keep my mouth shut.
Poetry workshops, however, were radically different. After the obligatory, get-to-know-you introductions, class discussions became lively and engaging. Most everyone contributed at least one comment (usually more) and seemed sincerely concerned with the poet’s progression. Although there were always certain classmates who offered more insightful critiques, I actually read the comments provided by each student (while I was more inclined to just throw away comments on my essays).
The success of the poetry workshops depended in large part, I think, on the atmosphere. Sitting in a circle, the open forum for discussion, and my instructor’s warmth made everyone feel more comfortable. We were also required to exchange poems a week in advance, and then provide a typed copy of our comments to both the instructor and poet the following week. These comments were not graded, though they did factor into our participation grade. While there is an element of playfulness that just comes with the creative writing territory, I think these tactics will be important in English 1000. Curzan and Damour suggest providing guidelines, which I think would make a good class discussion, i.e. what makes a good paper AND what makes a good workshop (a tactic also suggested by Bean). I hope that this will help foster a sense of solidarity and good will in my classroom, something I hope to begin implementing from the day one. I think exchanging papers in advance and requiring typed comments (that are not for a letter grade) is a great way to stimulate analysis in advance, so students arrive at class with something to discuss.
The paper workshops were overall pretty useless; most of the students offered little or no comments about the major concerns of the paper (i.e. a strong thesis, organization, etc). If I did receive extensive comments, they were usually pretty worthless or flat-out laughable. Interactions with fellow group members were pretty uncomfortable and stilted as well. Occasionally a great group would form that was actually productive, but that was definitely an exception to the rule. The workshops seemed designed, more than anything, to fill up class time, or at least that was the general attitude of the students. No one seemed invested in anyone else’s paper. I too exhibited this sort of apathetic approach at times, especially when the papers I read were quite obviously not trying to very hard to address the assignment, or were just plain boring. Even when I was genuinely interest in improving a classmate’s paper, the awkward silences were enough to keep my mouth shut.
Poetry workshops, however, were radically different. After the obligatory, get-to-know-you introductions, class discussions became lively and engaging. Most everyone contributed at least one comment (usually more) and seemed sincerely concerned with the poet’s progression. Although there were always certain classmates who offered more insightful critiques, I actually read the comments provided by each student (while I was more inclined to just throw away comments on my essays).
The success of the poetry workshops depended in large part, I think, on the atmosphere. Sitting in a circle, the open forum for discussion, and my instructor’s warmth made everyone feel more comfortable. We were also required to exchange poems a week in advance, and then provide a typed copy of our comments to both the instructor and poet the following week. These comments were not graded, though they did factor into our participation grade. While there is an element of playfulness that just comes with the creative writing territory, I think these tactics will be important in English 1000. Curzan and Damour suggest providing guidelines, which I think would make a good class discussion, i.e. what makes a good paper AND what makes a good workshop (a tactic also suggested by Bean). I hope that this will help foster a sense of solidarity and good will in my classroom, something I hope to begin implementing from the day one. I think exchanging papers in advance and requiring typed comments (that are not for a letter grade) is a great way to stimulate analysis in advance, so students arrive at class with something to discuss.
assignments
I found the Bean chapters useful for finding assignment possibilities, but I also looked at the Rogerian argument section in one of the textbooks I requested (Prentice Hall's Perspectives on Argument by Nancy Wood), which had some activities more specifically geared toward teaching Rogerian argument.
I, like Rebecca, volunteered to go ahead and lead a part of class on Thursday. This activity will prepare for my second paper assignment, which uses Rogerian argument. Basically, I'll divide the class into groups of 3 (or so) students, who will then write dialogues (or trialogues?) about controversial topics-- the Iraq War, immigration, etc. I want to make sure that a broad spectrum of opinions is represented and that the students avoid binary thinking, so I've written minimal descriptions for the 'characters' in the discussions. I'm hoping that this activity will help decenter my students and see issues from various points of view.
To prepare my students for their first assignment, in which they'll be analyzing 2 opinion articles, I intend to distribute copies of sample opinion articles to small groups of the students and have them list pros and cons of the article assigned to their group. By requiring them to find both positive and negative points about the article, I hope to encourage them to think about how the article acheives its effect and how it could be strengthened, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.
A couple of activities suggested by Perspectives on Argument that I thought were interesting were to have the students write a Rogerian response to a letter to the editor in a newspaper and to have them team up with classmates who have opposing views from them on some issue and to spend time stating and restating each other's positions until both feel that their position has been understood.
I, like Rebecca, volunteered to go ahead and lead a part of class on Thursday. This activity will prepare for my second paper assignment, which uses Rogerian argument. Basically, I'll divide the class into groups of 3 (or so) students, who will then write dialogues (or trialogues?) about controversial topics-- the Iraq War, immigration, etc. I want to make sure that a broad spectrum of opinions is represented and that the students avoid binary thinking, so I've written minimal descriptions for the 'characters' in the discussions. I'm hoping that this activity will help decenter my students and see issues from various points of view.
To prepare my students for their first assignment, in which they'll be analyzing 2 opinion articles, I intend to distribute copies of sample opinion articles to small groups of the students and have them list pros and cons of the article assigned to their group. By requiring them to find both positive and negative points about the article, I hope to encourage them to think about how the article acheives its effect and how it could be strengthened, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.
A couple of activities suggested by Perspectives on Argument that I thought were interesting were to have the students write a Rogerian response to a letter to the editor in a newspaper and to have them team up with classmates who have opposing views from them on some issue and to spend time stating and restating each other's positions until both feel that their position has been understood.
Formal rhetoric and Rogerian approach
Rogerian Argument raises many interesting issues. I think that its main value is the emphasis on attention to different points of view. Actually we mentioned it in class when discussing how to overcome one-sided argumentation. I liked the examples that demonstrate how most statements are only relatively true. I would use this kind of examples to teach students to look at things from different angles. My first assignment (and not only mine as far as I know) aims to puzzle them in this way.
I am interested in how we can teach this psychological method. "Rogerian argument has no conventional structure ... the structure is more directly the product of a particular writer, a particular topic, and a particular audience" (98). Informal writing is easier, because formal requirements may restrain us. Do we perceive formal writing as less emotional and more authoritative? Rogers emphasises oral communication that is less formal. It corresponds with sequensce in assignments that often go from less formal to more formal ones, e.g. discussion - first submission - final paper.
Carl Rogers schemes look like some general principles applied to theory of retoric. "Conveying to the Reader That He Is Understood" (98) sounds loke one of good famous principles in psychology of human communication that says "first praise, only then critisize". "Writer-based" and "reader-based" writing analysed in Bean's book links toRogerian approach as well. It seems like many people use Rogers's argumentation in practice without any knowledge of Rogers. As least, I have been using it before reading about it.
I am interested in how we can teach this psychological method. "Rogerian argument has no conventional structure ... the structure is more directly the product of a particular writer, a particular topic, and a particular audience" (98). Informal writing is easier, because formal requirements may restrain us. Do we perceive formal writing as less emotional and more authoritative? Rogers emphasises oral communication that is less formal. It corresponds with sequensce in assignments that often go from less formal to more formal ones, e.g. discussion - first submission - final paper.
Carl Rogers schemes look like some general principles applied to theory of retoric. "Conveying to the Reader That He Is Understood" (98) sounds loke one of good famous principles in psychology of human communication that says "first praise, only then critisize". "Writer-based" and "reader-based" writing analysed in Bean's book links toRogerian approach as well. It seems like many people use Rogers's argumentation in practice without any knowledge of Rogers. As least, I have been using it before reading about it.
Two Activities
Many of the ideas for student activities in Bean and Curzan & Damour are quite helpful. Freewriting seems to be an ideal way of encouraging discussion, and the classroom debate seems like an ideal way to prepare them for a "taking a stance" essay.
For my first assignment, which is to take an essay from the class text and analyze the argument, considering the writer's motives and authority, I thought that it might help to have a small group activity by which the students would look at editorials from newspaper opinion columns. Before using terminology like "analysis" and "authority", I would have them look at the articles and simply ask questions about it. Like what is the editorial about, what is the author trying to say, do you agree or disagree with the author.
For a paper that will have more of a take a stance, the dialogue or argumentative script activity seems like a great idea. It would be similar to the classroom debate, but could just be a short writing assignment that the students individually do as well, or could even be done in small groups of, say, four students where two students write the dialogue for one side of the argument, and two students take the other side.
For my first assignment, which is to take an essay from the class text and analyze the argument, considering the writer's motives and authority, I thought that it might help to have a small group activity by which the students would look at editorials from newspaper opinion columns. Before using terminology like "analysis" and "authority", I would have them look at the articles and simply ask questions about it. Like what is the editorial about, what is the author trying to say, do you agree or disagree with the author.
For a paper that will have more of a take a stance, the dialogue or argumentative script activity seems like a great idea. It would be similar to the classroom debate, but could just be a short writing assignment that the students individually do as well, or could even be done in small groups of, say, four students where two students write the dialogue for one side of the argument, and two students take the other side.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Rogerian argument
I found the selections about Rogerian argument really interesting. This actually addresses one of my main concerns with argument--that no one really listens to the other side or admits that the other side is worth listening to. One of the things that annoyed me most about being an opinion columnist is that all too frequently my fellow-columnists would 'support' their arguments by saying, in effect, "Those who disagree are stupid/immoral." Generally, however, the other side is not stupid/immoral. There are two sides to most arguments because it is usually possible to be both intelligent and moral and on either side. I'm actually considering rewriting my second assignment (which I didn't ever like to begin with) to require my students to use Rogerian argument and try to see the other side of an issue about which they feel strongly.
This is the draft of my revised assignment:
From the texts we have discussed in class, choose a text that advocates a position that you oppose (this text may be fiction, nonfiction, or poetry). Using this text, utilize Rogerian argument to clearly state the author’s position as well as your own position. Your audience is the author and those who agree with him/her. In this essay, you are trying to create understanding between yourself and the author of the text; in order to change his/her position, you must show your understanding of and respect for this position, in addition to making your own case.
Any thoughts?
This is the draft of my revised assignment:
From the texts we have discussed in class, choose a text that advocates a position that you oppose (this text may be fiction, nonfiction, or poetry). Using this text, utilize Rogerian argument to clearly state the author’s position as well as your own position. Your audience is the author and those who agree with him/her. In this essay, you are trying to create understanding between yourself and the author of the text; in order to change his/her position, you must show your understanding of and respect for this position, in addition to making your own case.
Any thoughts?
First Assignment
As you all will see on Thursday (since I decided to go ahead and volunteer for the lesson plan presentation), I plan to use a variety of the ideas in the Bean chapters we read. For one, I agree with the observations about the room and how where you sit/stand and where students are placed influences the discussion and interaction of the class. I never sit my students in rows because I feel it encourages some to "skate by" or "disappear" as they hide behind their peers. So, I will keep you all in the circle of course. I will use a combination of lecture and guiding questions to spark discussion because I feel that it is important for students to be a part of the class. I also like the idea of writing after the lesson to help solidify ideas or present questions about unclear material. I plan, tentatively, to use this idea as well. These ideas are not exactly new to me, but it is a good reinforcement of the techniques I am used to using, which gives me greater confidence in this transition to the college classroom.
Just to include a summary of the activity (I don't have the entire thing planned as of yet), I plan to write a statement on the board about artifacts and then conduct a brainstorming session considering what artifacts are and how language (written and oral) may fit in with the definition. Then I plan to lead a discussion of the various types of literature and media which affect "our" definition of America and the character of America and then do a bit of reflective writing. This is a very brief sketch as of now, but I would welcome any comments or suggestions or questions. Have a great week everyone!
Just to include a summary of the activity (I don't have the entire thing planned as of yet), I plan to write a statement on the board about artifacts and then conduct a brainstorming session considering what artifacts are and how language (written and oral) may fit in with the definition. Then I plan to lead a discussion of the various types of literature and media which affect "our" definition of America and the character of America and then do a bit of reflective writing. This is a very brief sketch as of now, but I would welcome any comments or suggestions or questions. Have a great week everyone!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The stases
Since reading Fahnestock and Secor’s article, I have been thinking a lot the stases.
In relation to English 1000, I think that the classical theory of the stases could help students develop an idea for a topic into an idea for a claim. By using the stases to ask good questions about a topic, as Fahnestock and Secor model (60), students could develop a better idea about why they are struggling to write the academic essay without a thesis.
Moreso, I think Fahnestock and Secor’s argument about arguments in literature and in science could come into play in the classroom. The authors point out that arguments in science are conducted in the lower stases and arguments in literature are conducted in the first stases (70). The discourse in each discipline has different values. As an English graduate student, I might be more inclined to encourage my students to write a paper that analyzes a complex problem, which is a paper that my discipline values, than a paper that provides a definite solution to that problem, which is a paper another discipline (in sciences, perhaps) might value. Yet, I think that most students will benefit more from writing a paper that forces them to take a side. I also think this paper is easier to write.
In relation to English 1000, I think that the classical theory of the stases could help students develop an idea for a topic into an idea for a claim. By using the stases to ask good questions about a topic, as Fahnestock and Secor model (60), students could develop a better idea about why they are struggling to write the academic essay without a thesis.
Moreso, I think Fahnestock and Secor’s argument about arguments in literature and in science could come into play in the classroom. The authors point out that arguments in science are conducted in the lower stases and arguments in literature are conducted in the first stases (70). The discourse in each discipline has different values. As an English graduate student, I might be more inclined to encourage my students to write a paper that analyzes a complex problem, which is a paper that my discipline values, than a paper that provides a definite solution to that problem, which is a paper another discipline (in sciences, perhaps) might value. Yet, I think that most students will benefit more from writing a paper that forces them to take a side. I also think this paper is easier to write.
The Fear of Interpretation
In the writing center conference transcript that Bean provides in Chapter 2, I thought that the student's final response was particularly telling: "The reason why I'm undecided is because I couldn't create a strong enough argument for either side. There are too many holes in each side. If I were to pick one side, somebody could blow me out of the water" (19). This is a manifestation of what I've seen to be a more general theme. Yesterday I read a student paper in which the assignment involved "treating the Bible as literature" -- doing literary analysis on a "sacred text." The question of the assignment was whether or not God broke covenant with Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac -- a question which requires a YES or NO and a supporting argument. The student managed in a 4 page paper to never answer the question. In fact, within the paper itself, I found the phrase "Any interpretation of the Bible is just that -- an interpretation." The underlying meaning of this disclaimer seems to be: "I have no faith in my ability to construct and defend an argument, so I am just going to summarize the plot." So the essay turned out to be a paraphrased version of the Abraham and Isaac story with a bit of emotive digression.
Bean's allusion to Perry's theory of educational "stages" seems relevant. Perry would contend that this student was stuck in one of the middle stages of development -- that of "multiplicity," in which he/she is conscious of opposing views but sees all views as "just interpretation." The student's essay reveals a tendency to cling to the text itself (plot summary) in order to be sure that he/she cannot be criticized (because no interpretation has been offered). This student was, in fact, frightened at the prospect of having to "make meanings and defend them" (19).
I think the assignment itself was effective because it forces a confrontation -- a YES or a NO. It also requires students to engage rationally/logically with an authoritative text. But the students' response to the assignment suggests to me that, perhaps, the difference between analysis and summary had not been stressed enough during class time. I plan to emphasize and re-emphasize this distinction on a regular basis. Hopefully, when paper time rolls around, my students will have a solid idea of what to avoid (plot summary) and what an essay should do (make a claim and support/defend it). In other words, I want to help them get past "multiplicity" as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Bean's allusion to Perry's theory of educational "stages" seems relevant. Perry would contend that this student was stuck in one of the middle stages of development -- that of "multiplicity," in which he/she is conscious of opposing views but sees all views as "just interpretation." The student's essay reveals a tendency to cling to the text itself (plot summary) in order to be sure that he/she cannot be criticized (because no interpretation has been offered). This student was, in fact, frightened at the prospect of having to "make meanings and defend them" (19).
I think the assignment itself was effective because it forces a confrontation -- a YES or a NO. It also requires students to engage rationally/logically with an authoritative text. But the students' response to the assignment suggests to me that, perhaps, the difference between analysis and summary had not been stressed enough during class time. I plan to emphasize and re-emphasize this distinction on a regular basis. Hopefully, when paper time rolls around, my students will have a solid idea of what to avoid (plot summary) and what an essay should do (make a claim and support/defend it). In other words, I want to help them get past "multiplicity" as quickly and painlessly as possible.
The First Assignment as Metapedagogy
Writing one's own first assignment can be a humbling experience. Throughout the process, I've tried to keep in mind what pedagoigical value I hope to achieve in having students read what I've assigned and in having them write within certain given specifications. With these notions in mind, I've hit snags at pretty much every point in the process; and so I've second-guessed not only specific assignments and lesson plans, but also my overall approach/theme/syllabus. It's not so much that I'm concerned in the operational aspects of the syllabus--I think it's just fine--but in going through the process of writing the first assingment, I realize that I want it to do more. Or rather, I want it it to do different things. For example, I went in the opposite direction from most, it seems, and made my assignment way too broad in terms of the subject matter. I had given a choice of something like ten essays for students (or me) to choose from. As I was going through the essays, I saw in each of them something of value (of course) but, taken as a whole, they're not building up to want I to do with my class. So, in short, I've rewritten my first assignment and over the weekend I will be completely revising my syllabus (read: scrapping everything and completely starting over). I'm excited about it, though--this has really helped.
The first assignment
I was working upon my first assignment. I chose a general topic that could be interesting for students from different majors. However, it is not very easy for me to complete this task. The topic seems to be appropriate and gives possibilities for good argumentation. But I realize I am mostly used to topics on literature where mode of writing and argumentation is quite specific. So I think that we should not overload students with literary topics. Another correction to my assignment will be adding more topics for students to choose (I only had one).
Stasis Theory
After reading the two selections about Stasis Theory, I think students would be able to relate to it more than Aristotle or Toulmin. The idea of the questions and categories seems much simpler than trying to explain syllogisms and warrants. Plus, the example in the Fahnestock and Secor chapter of how magazine articles are set up using stasis questions makes the idea sound more contemporary and approachable.
However, the biggest eye-opener for me was in the second reading by Fulkerson. I agree that the ideas of induction and deduction are extremely confusing to instructors, let alone students. I think, though, the most enlightening point is that we use the wrong tools to teach students how to write arguments. The tools we use are meant for analysis. I really want to explore stasis theory more so I can incorporate the questioning techniques to help students develop a supportable, arguable thesis. Right now I don't have an exact idea about how to incorporate stasis theory other than teaching students to address those types of questions in order to explore topics.
However, the biggest eye-opener for me was in the second reading by Fulkerson. I agree that the ideas of induction and deduction are extremely confusing to instructors, let alone students. I think, though, the most enlightening point is that we use the wrong tools to teach students how to write arguments. The tools we use are meant for analysis. I really want to explore stasis theory more so I can incorporate the questioning techniques to help students develop a supportable, arguable thesis. Right now I don't have an exact idea about how to incorporate stasis theory other than teaching students to address those types of questions in order to explore topics.
Fulkstockerson
I frankly found the stasis chapters to be more difficult than Toulmin, though as with other chapters there are a number of useful gems to extract and hoard, thus creating an artifical scarcity (sorry, my imperialism class is spilling over). Fahnestock/Secor's discussion of stasis and audience (61) is interesting; another angle for talking about audience in general, which I'd like to find room for in my class plan...my favorite bit in Fahnestock/Secor was the discussion and results of the David Leverenz article from PMLA- pointing out that academic writing need not be reduced to binary opposition, arguing only for or against; as they quote Leverenz on Emerson, "not to take a stand within that paradoxical either-or but to see how his language resonates with the unresolved tensions of his life and time" (70). This is another one of my pet goals, getting students to strive for more complex and considered theses instead of simple, absolute, either-or debate (only a Sith deals in absolutes). The quality F/S ascribe to literary criticism, I think we can expand to all the writing we teach: "we can pose problems about literary works, uncover historical and biographical facts, sift evidence in the light of definitions, celebrate or question certain values. In doing so we come not to clear answers but to delight in the complexity of the process" (70).
Fulkerson's more direct focus on logic was more stultifying for me, though again I found some interesting stuff. _Writing Analytically_, which I'm reviewing, has a chapter on this inductive/deductive format, and I admit I never even considered whether this actually reflected classic logic's definition of these terms. At least that book doesn't fall all the way into the "complementary and exhaustive" trap (323); they also note that the forms can blend and produce several variations.
I most liked his STAR acronym: that examples used in evidence should be sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant. This is the sort of handy and readily understandable thing I can see undergraduates actually retaining. Also noteworthy was his assertion that "writing...almost always deals with contingent issues" (366) which I think another poster may have brought up. This goes back to the idea from Fahnestock/Secor of the complexity and qualifiers in most good (interesting?) arguments.
Fulkerson's more direct focus on logic was more stultifying for me, though again I found some interesting stuff. _Writing Analytically_, which I'm reviewing, has a chapter on this inductive/deductive format, and I admit I never even considered whether this actually reflected classic logic's definition of these terms. At least that book doesn't fall all the way into the "complementary and exhaustive" trap (323); they also note that the forms can blend and produce several variations.
I most liked his STAR acronym: that examples used in evidence should be sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant. This is the sort of handy and readily understandable thing I can see undergraduates actually retaining. Also noteworthy was his assertion that "writing...almost always deals with contingent issues" (366) which I think another poster may have brought up. This goes back to the idea from Fahnestock/Secor of the complexity and qualifiers in most good (interesting?) arguments.
Synthesizing Bean with Fahnestock and Secor Through Bauman
First, I'd like to thank the many of you who have given me well-wishes and have offered to help--I really do appreciate it. Things are stabilizing for me and this post marks the beginning of a significant uptick in my participation on the blog, for better or worse.
So, one thing I considered after reading Fahnestock and Secor is how what they have to say about assumptions in argument can be related to what Bean had to say about writing across the disciplines and students' bifurcated view of writing. Bean describes this view in terms of the assumption made by many students that "a writing teacher has no business criticizing one's ideas ('This is a writing class!') just as a history or science or philosophy teacher has no business criticizing one's writing ('This is not a writing class!')" (16). Bean puts it nicely I think when he says that students often think of writing as "packaging," "Separated from the act of thinking and creating" and so "writing becomes merely a skill that can be learned through grammar drills and through the production of pointless essays that students do not want to write and that teachers do not want to read" (ibid). This initial discussion in the reading assignments out of Bean stuck with me, and as I was reading Fahnestock and Secor and thinking about how they also argue, in a way, that there are some similarities between disciplines in terms of how one writes (mirroring Bean's discussion of the writing-across-the-curriculum approach). Fahnestock and Secor locate such similiarties in their comparison of the use of stases in scientific and literary writing in terms of the *assumptions* writers in each discipline share. As Fahnestock and Secor assert, "argments within a discipline usually assume the vallue of addressing certain subjects in a certain stases. That is what it means to write within a discipline" (70). They then go on to outline how both writers in literary studies and in science assume that their audience shares certain values--"Arguments in literary criticism do not spend time convincing readers that the works of Spenser, Milton, Wordsworth, and Emerson are worth reexamining" just as "arguments in science usually bypass explicit justification of the stasis of and content of their approach... in either science or literary studies, anyone who addresses a discipline in ways it does not recognize in effect tries to change that discipline or splinters off into a new one" (ibid).
Resisting my (strong) urge to discuss Thomas Kuhn (who Fahnestock and Secor mention) here, I'll instead bring in something else which I was actually thinking about last week when Dr. Strickland brought up the work of George Lakoff (_Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate_ and _Metaphors We Live By_, which he co-authored with Mark Johnson--by the way, I also recommend _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind). One key concept for Lakoff (along with conceptual metaphor and the embodied mind) is framing, as Dr. Strickland discussed. Discussing Lakoff's concept of framing brought to mind for me another concept of framing, that of Richard Bauman, and that's what came to mind again for me as I read Fahnestock and Secor. One of Bauman's key works is _The Verbal Art of Performance_ (the folklore folks will probably know this one--we use it in Anthro and Linguistics, too), and in it, he deals (as the title suggests) with the nature of verbal performance, but I think one can find it useful (or, alternately, completely tangential) to substitute *writing* for performance and that doing so could illuminate what they have to say about stases.
For Bauman, performance involves the performer, the audience and the setting (much like Fahnestock and Secor's discussion of writing and argument). The setting (or for writing, the nature of the publication, say--_Science_ vs. _PMLA_), of course, often cues an audience that what they are about to see/hear/read is going to be a certain kind of performance (or a cetain kind of writing). There is also an assumption of cultural comptencey on the part of the audience--they recognize certain cues which will foreground or call special attention to certain aspects of the performance. The performer/writer uses these cues--special codes, formulas, figarutive language and other stylistic devices, fluctations in voice, etc.--to create an interpretive frame for the audience/reader: "Performance sets up, or represents, an interpretative frame within which the messages being communicated are to be understood..." and "All framing, including performance, is accomplished through the employment of culturally conventionalized metacommunication." So the setting for a performance/reading cues the audience/reader, and the performer/writer sets up an interpretative frame for audience/reader using cultural conventions that *key* for them that what is to follow is a performance or writing within a certain genre or discipline. An audience at a comedy club, for example, is cued by the setting to know that the performance they are about to see will involve jokes, and the comedian will frame a joke using certain cultural conventions to cue the audience that what they are about hear is the beginning of a joke (or the punchline). Seinfeld, for example, is in/famous for starting his jokes/observations with "Did you ever notice..." or "What's the deal with...".
Framing arguments--both in the sense that Lakoff uses the term and the sense that Bauman uses it--can work in tandem, I feel, with the stases of arguments as Fahnestock and Secor outline them (facts, definitions, causes, values, proposals—or procedure or policy) to help lay the foundation for a writing-across-the-curriculum orientation.
So, one thing I considered after reading Fahnestock and Secor is how what they have to say about assumptions in argument can be related to what Bean had to say about writing across the disciplines and students' bifurcated view of writing. Bean describes this view in terms of the assumption made by many students that "a writing teacher has no business criticizing one's ideas ('This is a writing class!') just as a history or science or philosophy teacher has no business criticizing one's writing ('This is not a writing class!')" (16). Bean puts it nicely I think when he says that students often think of writing as "packaging," "Separated from the act of thinking and creating" and so "writing becomes merely a skill that can be learned through grammar drills and through the production of pointless essays that students do not want to write and that teachers do not want to read" (ibid). This initial discussion in the reading assignments out of Bean stuck with me, and as I was reading Fahnestock and Secor and thinking about how they also argue, in a way, that there are some similarities between disciplines in terms of how one writes (mirroring Bean's discussion of the writing-across-the-curriculum approach). Fahnestock and Secor locate such similiarties in their comparison of the use of stases in scientific and literary writing in terms of the *assumptions* writers in each discipline share. As Fahnestock and Secor assert, "argments within a discipline usually assume the vallue of addressing certain subjects in a certain stases. That is what it means to write within a discipline" (70). They then go on to outline how both writers in literary studies and in science assume that their audience shares certain values--"Arguments in literary criticism do not spend time convincing readers that the works of Spenser, Milton, Wordsworth, and Emerson are worth reexamining" just as "arguments in science usually bypass explicit justification of the stasis of and content of their approach... in either science or literary studies, anyone who addresses a discipline in ways it does not recognize in effect tries to change that discipline or splinters off into a new one" (ibid).
Resisting my (strong) urge to discuss Thomas Kuhn (who Fahnestock and Secor mention) here, I'll instead bring in something else which I was actually thinking about last week when Dr. Strickland brought up the work of George Lakoff (_Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate_ and _Metaphors We Live By_, which he co-authored with Mark Johnson--by the way, I also recommend _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind). One key concept for Lakoff (along with conceptual metaphor and the embodied mind) is framing, as Dr. Strickland discussed. Discussing Lakoff's concept of framing brought to mind for me another concept of framing, that of Richard Bauman, and that's what came to mind again for me as I read Fahnestock and Secor. One of Bauman's key works is _The Verbal Art of Performance_ (the folklore folks will probably know this one--we use it in Anthro and Linguistics, too), and in it, he deals (as the title suggests) with the nature of verbal performance, but I think one can find it useful (or, alternately, completely tangential) to substitute *writing* for performance and that doing so could illuminate what they have to say about stases.
For Bauman, performance involves the performer, the audience and the setting (much like Fahnestock and Secor's discussion of writing and argument). The setting (or for writing, the nature of the publication, say--_Science_ vs. _PMLA_), of course, often cues an audience that what they are about to see/hear/read is going to be a certain kind of performance (or a cetain kind of writing). There is also an assumption of cultural comptencey on the part of the audience--they recognize certain cues which will foreground or call special attention to certain aspects of the performance. The performer/writer uses these cues--special codes, formulas, figarutive language and other stylistic devices, fluctations in voice, etc.--to create an interpretive frame for the audience/reader: "Performance sets up, or represents, an interpretative frame within which the messages being communicated are to be understood..." and "All framing, including performance, is accomplished through the employment of culturally conventionalized metacommunication." So the setting for a performance/reading cues the audience/reader, and the performer/writer sets up an interpretative frame for audience/reader using cultural conventions that *key* for them that what is to follow is a performance or writing within a certain genre or discipline. An audience at a comedy club, for example, is cued by the setting to know that the performance they are about to see will involve jokes, and the comedian will frame a joke using certain cultural conventions to cue the audience that what they are about hear is the beginning of a joke (or the punchline). Seinfeld, for example, is in/famous for starting his jokes/observations with "Did you ever notice..." or "What's the deal with...".
Framing arguments--both in the sense that Lakoff uses the term and the sense that Bauman uses it--can work in tandem, I feel, with the stases of arguments as Fahnestock and Secor outline them (facts, definitions, causes, values, proposals—or procedure or policy) to help lay the foundation for a writing-across-the-curriculum orientation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)