First, a preliminary note: I'm very sorry--I wasn't aware of the new policy on blog posts until I read the e-mail from Dr. Strickland (so it was already too late) and I actually had planned on posting today and tomorrow, so I hadn't even finished the readings when I got the e-mail. Now that I have, there is a lot I want to say; but I first wanted to acknowledge the transgression (one of ignorance, not flouting).
Now that's out of the way, I'll start by saying that I found immediate, personal ways "into" each of the readings this week, and I think it might help to describe each of them as I go down the line.
For Muksian-Schutt, my immediate "in" was her use of the term "contact zones" in her title--I knew the term from having used Mary Louise Pratt's _Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation_ for Dr. Prahlad's English/Anthro 8700 course a few years ago. I quickly turned to Muksian-Schutt's list of "Works Cited" and, sure enough, she was using Pratt as the source for her own use of "contact zones." I know I recommend books a lot and I hope that doesn't distill what I'm about to say: _Imperial Eyes_ is an exceptional book. I know from some of the posts that others were taken with the idea of contact zones--and Leta asks if any one has suggestions about how to use the concept in a less focused manner--so I thought I'd share a little of Pratt's own work--just from the Introduction where she describes her concept a little further. It might help elicit some more practical ideas--or at least "sell" you on picking up a copy of the book.
---------------
From pages 6-7:
In an attempt to suggest a dialectic and historicized approach to travel writing, I have manufactured some terms and concepts along the way. One coinage that recurs throughout the book is the term "contact zone," which I use to refer to the space of colonial encounters, the space in which peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish ongoing relations, usually involving conditions of coercion, radical inequality, and intractable conflict. I borrow the term "contact" here from its use in linguistics, where the term contact language refers to improvised languages that develop among speakers of different native languages who need to communicate with each other consistently, usually in context of trade. Such languages begin as pidgins, and are called creoles when they come to have native speakers of their own. Like the societies of the contact zone, such languages are commonly regarded as chaotic, barbarous, lacking in structure (Ron Carter has suggested the term "contact literatures" to refer to literatures written in European languages from outside Europe.) "Contact zone" in my discussion is often synonymous with "colonial frontier." But while the latter term is grounded within a European expansionist perspective (the frontier is a frontier only with respect to Europe), "contact zone" is an attempt to invoke the spatial and temporal co-presence of subjects previously separated by geographic and historical disjunctures, and whose trajectories now intersect. By using the term "contact," I aim to foreground the interactive, improvisational dimensions of colonial encounters so easily ignored or suppressed by diffusionist accounts of conquest and domination. A "contact" perspective emphasizes how subjects are constituted in and by their relations to each other. It treats the relations among colonizers and colonized, or travelers and "travelees," not in terms of separateness or apartheid, but in terms of co-presence, interaction, interlocking understandings and practices, often within radically asymmetrical relations of power.
------------
(In addition to _Imperial Eyes_ and "Arts of the Contact Zone," the article by Pratt that Muksian-Schutt herself cites, I'd also recommend another of Pratt's articles, "Linguistic Utopias," printed in _The Linguistics of Writing_, edited by Fabb, Attridge, Durant and McCabe (Manchester UP, 1987, pages 48-66).
It occurred to me a while back—after Clair first brought it up in her posts—how much the social relations in the classroom can be described using *analogies* to post-colonial theoretical concepts. Not to yoke violently together two heterogeneous ideas, but it seems to me that Pratt's description of contact zones can be applied to the classroom itself: students in this "contact zone" constitute a "spatial and temporal co-presence of subjects previously separated by geographic and historical disjunctures, and whose trajectories now intersect" and this formulation "emphasizes how subjects are constituted in and by their relations to each other" and "it treats the relations..." among students and teachers "not in terms of separateness or apartheid, but in terms of co-presence, interaction, interlocking understandings and practices, often within radically asymmetrical relations of power." In addition to students coming together and intersecting with an instructor in this way, the contact zone model can be used to describe pedagogical strategies *in* the classroom and *about* the classroom. Muksian-Schutt talks about how "students confuse expressing a belief with 'taking a side,' thereby forcing themselves into a 'left/right' dichotomy which does not offer a comfortable conversation entry on moderate ground" (340). Towards the end she reiterates that a goal she had in employing the contact zones model is that "students understood that what they had perceived as lack of position was very much a position, one rooted in moderate ground" (344).
Muksian-Schutt's goals here reminded me of Bean's discussion of group work, particularly when he cites the objection to it that it "devalues eccentricity and teaches social conformity" (166). Along the same lines of teaching students that "moderate ground" can be firm ground, I see Bean's "ideal of group consensus" as productive, too. Just as students often come in to classes with a false dichotomy of left/right, the charge that group consensus "stifles creativity by forcing a leveling of talents... seems grounded in a false premise equating consensus with conformity. There is a qualitative difference between conformity--an easy and quick acquiescence to the first thesis produced by a group member--and a synthesis reached through dialectic conversation" (ibid). Bean goes on to assert that, in his experience, "group work does not suppress eccentric and individualistic ideas but in fact gives them a chance to be aired and tested in group conversation" (167). Group work for Bean, in fact, enacts a critical pedagogy and empowers students: “After working independently, students are more confident in their own views. They become less passive, more active in raising questions, more challenging as audiences” and, Bean asserts, “the class discussions that follow small group work are among the most stimulating, challenging, and satisfying of [all my] teaching experiences” (154). In empowering students, the teacher conversely “becomes more vulnerable, more at risk, than in a lecture setting” (ibid); teachers can “become colearners with students” (149) and fulfill the role of “teacher as coach,” a description Bean has used before.
Bean’s pedagogy itself also seems adaptable to a conflict zones model in which the classroom itself is the subject. Bean foregrounds personality and learning types, as well as gender and cultural differences among students as “worth discussing” (161-2). A class could, for example, “discuss how the socialization of males in American culture tends toward decision making based on abstract rigorously applied principles, whereas females tend to be more concerned with the interpersonal dimension of decision making” (162). One could add to that cultural constituted differences in conversational styles between men and women (as well as regional differences—Southerners, for example, leave a relatively long pause in between the end of an interlocutor’s speech and the beginning of their own, whereas New Yorkers allow for a relatively short amount of time—if a Southerner and a New Yorker hold a conversation, then, the Southerner will leave long pauses that the New Yorker has been conditioned to keep filling, and so the Southerner might feel the New Yorker is rude because s/he dominates the conversation, whereas the New Yorker might think the Southerner is dumb because s/he has nothing to add to the conversation). Bean goes so far as to advocate that teachers “explain to students the positive values of conflict… By showing students how conflict generates creative thinking, the teacher can help students welcome disagreements and see how a watered-down compromise that no one really likes is less valuable than a true synthesis that seems better than either of the original views (ibid). Students can also opt to dissent from the consensus opinion.
(Full disclosure: like Bri, I personally find group work hard to actually participate in—and I actually took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as part of a team building activity when I was a Resident Advisor in the dorms and, back then at least, I was an ENFP. The “E” is for extrovert and the “P” is for perceiving, just like Bean says on 162-3—but unlike Beans’s predictions for Es and Ps, I don’t play well with others when it comes to group projects… so I’ll have to get over it so that I can use this important pedagogical tool).
As Muksian-Schutt points out, when students are not forced to choose sides but can stand somewhere in the middle, it validates their beliefs and helps them become more critical. With that newfound critical mind they can then examine cultural artefacts to interrogate their assumptions and, in doing so, her students became aware of the media's role in forming perceptions of public figures, as well as the historical particularism of one's own era. I value contingency, nuance, acknowledgment of complexities and a resistance to absolutes. Muksian-Schutt's comments reminded me of that Hunter Thompson passage I quoted a few classes back--the one from _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_ where Hunter laments the end of the 60s and the "rolling back" of the real social changes that had occured during that time. My point in using it then was to illustrate that Dr. Gonzo didn't portray the 60s in a completely nostalgic light--he didn't fall prey to a false dichotomy--not "us and them" or "then and now." The passage is full of nuance and--to get really weird and use Keats--negative capability.
Another example of a post-colonial reading of classroom dynamics can be found in an affinity I see existing between Pratt and a text I mentioned a couple of weeks ago in reference to Rogerian argument--_The Location of Culture_ by Homi K. Bhabha. Like Pratt, Bhabha analyzes colonizer/colonized relations in terms of interdependence and reflexive constructions of subjectivity--all cultural artefacts are constructed in what he calls the "Third Space of enunciation" (page 37), a "contact zone," one might say. The Third Space can be productive, Bhabha claims, "For a willingness to descend into that alien territory... may open the way to conceptualizing an international culture, based not on the exoticism of multiculturalism or the diversity of cultures, but on the inscription and articulation of culture's hybridity" (38). The group dynamic in Bean shares with Bhabha an adaptation of the dialectic model--thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
Bean’s article also led me to Shen’s. Bean’s observation of how “Americans often state their desires bluntly and assertively in ways that would seem rude in many Asian cultures, where the expression of desire would be masked in roundabout conversation” (162) reminded me of Shen’s discussion of how Chinese writers “beat around the bush” before engaging the matter at hand and this is a crucial difference between Chinese and Anglo-American styles of composition The notion of hybridity suggests the Shen article, too, of course: the negotiation of the "Chinese Self" and the "English Self" is, for me, an intra-personal Third Space or contact zone between cultures--and the hybridity that emerges only after much struggle informs Shen's cautionary tale. Shen is obviously somewhat critical of Maoist China, and understandably so. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was still going in 1975, the year the anecdote that Shen recounts at the beginning of the essay (with the chanting of the slogans and so on) takes place (the arrest of the Gang of Four marks the Cultural Revolution's end, and that happened in '76). But Shen also states plainly that the “Chinese Self” will always be there—Shen hasn’t assimilated or been enculturated; a hybridity between the selves now exists. While I agree with Leta that “it is important that we require international students in our classes to learn to write in traditional Western forms” and that “we would be doing them a disservice if we did not,” Shen’s text also reminded and reinforced for me the flip-side of the coin—which is also implicit in Leta’s observation of “what huge differences there are between Chinese and English styles of composition”—that is to say, that the Anglo-American style of composition is a cultural artefact, much like we discussed in class a couple of weeks ago.
For me it’s important to foreground for students such artifacts in order to demonstrate the arbitrariness of so much that we take for granted as natural—how much of it is culturally constructed (the social constructivists that Bean lists on 165—Rorty, Kuhn, Geertz, and Goffman—is like a Hall of Fame for thinkers, in my opinion). To go (yet again) down the garden of forking paths that is digressive citation, another post-colonial text came to mind in reading Shen's article--and this was reinforced by blog posts commenting on how "naturalized" English writing was for most of us and how Shen's account of his own experience opened eyes. A little into the article, Shen observes that "learning the rules of English composition is, to a certain extent, learning the values of Anglo-American society. In writing classes in the United States I found that I had to reprogram my mind, to redefine some of the basic concepts and values that had been imprinted and reinforced in my mind by my cultural background, and that had been part of me all my life" (217). This immediately reminded me of Gauri Viswanathan's _Masks of Conquest_, in which Viswanathan argues that "the humanistic functions traditionally associated with the study of literature--for example, the shaping of character or the development of the aesthetic sense or the disciplines of ethical thinking--can be vital in the process of sociopolitical control" (2) and that such control was undertaken by the British when it took over the education system of India following the Charter Act of 1813. The British sought to use the hegemonic potential of the educational system to communicate Anglo values and to legitimate British rule and soon discovered the power of English literature as vehicle for naturalizing both: "The strategy of locating authority in these texts all but effaced the sordid history of colonist expropriation, material exploitation, and class and race oppression behind European world dominance" in which "the English literary text functioned as a surrogate Englishman in his highest and most perfect state" (23). Moving the lens just a bit from reading literature (consumption) to the production of writing, one can see how Shen’s comments can send up red flags.
Well, I’m already on page 5 in the Word version of this, so I’m going to save my screed against Lindquist for another post.
It takes a nation of millions to hold us back…
Court
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Student Diversity
Hey all! I am sorry this is a little late (car appointment and so no access this morning). I wanted to concentrate on the readings in Barnett with this post because I found all three of them to be interesting and pertinent in a way which I feel we have neglected to discuss up to this point. As to Bean, I felt it to be a little repetitive this week since we have already done so much with small group work as a class (which has been extremely beneficial in a way that reading about the groups wasn't. You have all had such great activities!!!). He offers some interesting insights, but I feel we have covered them together in some way already.
What struck me most about the readings in Barnett this week was the idea of student diversity. I feel that many teachers are under the impression that students are students, and in one sense they are. You have to treat them equally on the basis of decent humanity, but the students themselves are very diverse for many reasons. The reading I felt to be most eye-opening was the one by Shen. I had never heard the difference between Asian students and American students with respect to writing put more clearly before. I had been told about the difference in the idea of what constitutes plagiarism, but the difference goes so far beyond that! In a way, I feel that it is a tragedy to think of Asian students having to adopt a new "self" in order to be successful in writing in English. I have to wonder what the larger consequences are of this adoption of the new "self." Does this mean that in expecting the students to all respond to argument in the same way that we are destroying some kind of innate culture? I am not sure how to respond to this article simply because I am not sure it is right to ask Asian students to become a multiple personality of sorts. Am I just taking it too literally or seriously? I mean, on one hand, I feel that they have an added benefit of expanding their understanding based on multi-cultural outlook, but I wonder if we are sending the wrong message in asking them to subordinate their own cultural views of writing. It is a question I intend to give more thought and attention. However, the article was very helpful in learning how to explain English writing to an Asian student. I hope it will help me not only with my class but also with tutoring ESL students in the student success center.
The other articles in Barnett also made me realize there are other differences concerning culture which are within our own society. The idea of class in Lindquist's article is very intriguing. I am still finishing the essay, but I think that looking at class status is important when dealing with a variety of students and their writings.
What struck me most about the readings in Barnett this week was the idea of student diversity. I feel that many teachers are under the impression that students are students, and in one sense they are. You have to treat them equally on the basis of decent humanity, but the students themselves are very diverse for many reasons. The reading I felt to be most eye-opening was the one by Shen. I had never heard the difference between Asian students and American students with respect to writing put more clearly before. I had been told about the difference in the idea of what constitutes plagiarism, but the difference goes so far beyond that! In a way, I feel that it is a tragedy to think of Asian students having to adopt a new "self" in order to be successful in writing in English. I have to wonder what the larger consequences are of this adoption of the new "self." Does this mean that in expecting the students to all respond to argument in the same way that we are destroying some kind of innate culture? I am not sure how to respond to this article simply because I am not sure it is right to ask Asian students to become a multiple personality of sorts. Am I just taking it too literally or seriously? I mean, on one hand, I feel that they have an added benefit of expanding their understanding based on multi-cultural outlook, but I wonder if we are sending the wrong message in asking them to subordinate their own cultural views of writing. It is a question I intend to give more thought and attention. However, the article was very helpful in learning how to explain English writing to an Asian student. I hope it will help me not only with my class but also with tutoring ESL students in the student success center.
The other articles in Barnett also made me realize there are other differences concerning culture which are within our own society. The idea of class in Lindquist's article is very intriguing. I am still finishing the essay, but I think that looking at class status is important when dealing with a variety of students and their writings.
Group think
In chapter 9, John Bean makes a strong argument in favor of instructors using group activities in their classes. Bean is particularly convincing by pointing out that group work can cultivate class unity and can give students a chance to try out their ideas, “to try out their own wings” (167) as he puts it. In a conversation I had with an English instructor last week, I heard a great testimony about the power of group work to unite a class. This instructor told me that by staging a play at Speakers Circle, her class came together, engaging with the material with lively class discussions in the weeks following. And based on my experience in the writing lab, I have found that students who get an opportunity to discuss the ideas presented in class with another person (or better yet, a few other people) do a better job thinking critically about the material, processing the information more completely.
I liked Bean’s idea that students working in groups should be required to record the discussion and present the group’s ideas (153). Besides motivating the students to finish the task and giving them some practice addressing a crowd, it never hurts to give students more practice writing. It teaches them that writing can not only record thoughts but also lead to more thinking. Thus, I plan to encourage students to be mindful of their thoughts, giving them opportunities to practice this type of thinking in groups.
In my English 1000 class, I plan to use group activities frequently. Of course, I plan to divide the class into groups for peer conferences during the revision process. As I recall from my undergraduate days (and even during grad school), professors typically divided the class into groups of three or four students for peer conferences. But Bean suggests that groups of two students are optimal for this kind of work (160). I guess that a group can be more thorough when it only has to get through two papers, but groups of two are more limited in terms of peer feedback than groups of three or four. How effective would using groups of two be in this situation?
I liked Bean’s idea that students working in groups should be required to record the discussion and present the group’s ideas (153). Besides motivating the students to finish the task and giving them some practice addressing a crowd, it never hurts to give students more practice writing. It teaches them that writing can not only record thoughts but also lead to more thinking. Thus, I plan to encourage students to be mindful of their thoughts, giving them opportunities to practice this type of thinking in groups.
In my English 1000 class, I plan to use group activities frequently. Of course, I plan to divide the class into groups for peer conferences during the revision process. As I recall from my undergraduate days (and even during grad school), professors typically divided the class into groups of three or four students for peer conferences. But Bean suggests that groups of two students are optimal for this kind of work (160). I guess that a group can be more thorough when it only has to get through two papers, but groups of two are more limited in terms of peer feedback than groups of three or four. How effective would using groups of two be in this situation?
Mixology
Lindquist on working-class vs. academic values, besides reminding me of interactions with my extended family, reminds me that many of our students will come from rural areas, and may not really care about writing very much, or agree with me about the importance of poetry. And that regardless of class, there's a broad range of majors to consider. Those who want to go into journalism will be easy to convince that effective communication matters, but chem or ag majors will be hard sells. Reading this makes me think my distrust of personal-experience writing may be too absolute; small assignments or ungraded writing on things of importance to the student could be useful in seeing where they're coming from, and figuring out how to speak to their issues. Darren noted that "getting the students to express the attitudes and opinions they already have" is key to having them question their assumptions. Lindquist quotes Frank Farmer on an important teaching problem: "knowing how to teach in a manner that both respects our students' views and, at the same time, questions the complacencies which too often inform these views." I don't want the students to write the opinion that they think I will like, I want them to write a paper that supports their own opinion. Also, if the students already have a somewhat "enlightened" view, I still want them to question their assumptions- not to change their mind, but to realize why they think the way they do.
Shen I found fascinating- having studied Chinese and Japanese poetry a little, I could relate to the cultural translation issues. I actually really liked the writing samples from here "Chinese self"; certainly unorthodox, but thoughtful and evocative. I actually don't mind the "beating around the bush before attacking the main point" style, as long as the writer gives some indication of direction- I approve of thesis-last papers, and will try to convince people to use them.
The discussion of contact zones puts me in mind of Rogers. Getting past pro/con to something in between (the "yes, but" thesis?) sounds a lot like his thing.
Shen I found fascinating- having studied Chinese and Japanese poetry a little, I could relate to the cultural translation issues. I actually really liked the writing samples from here "Chinese self"; certainly unorthodox, but thoughtful and evocative. I actually don't mind the "beating around the bush before attacking the main point" style, as long as the writer gives some indication of direction- I approve of thesis-last papers, and will try to convince people to use them.
The discussion of contact zones puts me in mind of Rogers. Getting past pro/con to something in between (the "yes, but" thesis?) sounds a lot like his thing.
Doesn't everyone hate group work?
I remember always hating group work (until I got to Wash U, anyway) because inadvertently, I was more concerned than my fellow group members about ensuring that the assignment was done well. That said, I think that this sort of short-term work might encourage students to actually enjoy or at least appreciate group work, since it won't be graded, per se.
I really liked several of Bean's suggestions for small group work on writing. I think that, in particular, the "frame," "question-generating," "evidence-finding," "norming, " and "rough draft workshop" strategies seem like they will be incredibly helpful in getting students to work together on argumentation and writing practices.
Another thing that I've thought of is trying to put together a sort of thesis workshop in which students will form theses based upon a piece of freewriting that I give them. This will, I hope, give them practice working with forming theses without having to feel silly if others disagree with their positions on issues. I'm not sure if that made sense or not.
I think that most of Bean's suggestions here are ones that I would want to get into early in the semester to allow students to get their feet wet before having to form arguments, frames, etc on their own.
I'm rather torn about how to divide the groups, however. While I realize that groups tend to be more "chatty" around their friends, they are also less likely to be silent and not contribute if it forces their friends, rather than some random classmates, to compensate for their silence. As an undergrad, I was much less bitter about helping a friend than I was some slacker, also. I felt more of a sense of investment in making sure everyone understood the assignment and contributed and was therefore less likely to dominate the conversation. Maybe that's just me. And, while Bean offers suggestions for countering the dominating student (or conversation Hog, as Liz called me), I think that forcing students into roles that they are uncomfortable with might make them unnecessarily bitter. I don't know. What do you think?
--Bri
I really liked several of Bean's suggestions for small group work on writing. I think that, in particular, the "frame," "question-generating," "evidence-finding," "norming, " and "rough draft workshop" strategies seem like they will be incredibly helpful in getting students to work together on argumentation and writing practices.
Another thing that I've thought of is trying to put together a sort of thesis workshop in which students will form theses based upon a piece of freewriting that I give them. This will, I hope, give them practice working with forming theses without having to feel silly if others disagree with their positions on issues. I'm not sure if that made sense or not.
I think that most of Bean's suggestions here are ones that I would want to get into early in the semester to allow students to get their feet wet before having to form arguments, frames, etc on their own.
I'm rather torn about how to divide the groups, however. While I realize that groups tend to be more "chatty" around their friends, they are also less likely to be silent and not contribute if it forces their friends, rather than some random classmates, to compensate for their silence. As an undergrad, I was much less bitter about helping a friend than I was some slacker, also. I felt more of a sense of investment in making sure everyone understood the assignment and contributed and was therefore less likely to dominate the conversation. Maybe that's just me. And, while Bean offers suggestions for countering the dominating student (or conversation Hog, as Liz called me), I think that forcing students into roles that they are uncomfortable with might make them unnecessarily bitter. I don't know. What do you think?
--Bri
The Grammar of Selfhood
The Shen article was a striking reminder of just how little we can take for granted as teachers. It is easy to overlook the arbitrariness of the language we use, the logical forms we expect, and the stylistic qualities that we value. Often, I think, instructors fall into the trap of objectifying these arbitrary values as if they were sacred, universal truths rather than temporary cultural constructs (that vary dramatically both within and across cultures).
As Shen reveals, the standards of “correct” writing and argumentation are culturally relative, and these differences shed light on the nature of the self. Shen’s experiences confirm the idea that our sense of selfhood is (at least in part) linguistically structured, and that the language that we use to articulate the self is determined largely by our cultural conditioning. I found it striking that a child raised in communist China would learn to efface the “I” in formal writing in favor of the collectivist “we” of “the working class, the Party, the country, or some other collective body” (217). This shows that, beneath the simple grammatical convention lies an entire system of valuations that runs counter to many of the assumptions of traditional English composition. Not only this, but these conventions play a structural role in the shaping of personal identity, such that Shen experiences the shift from one sytem to the other as a radical transformation: “the process of redefining myself” (218).
During my experiences at the writing lab, I have often worked with international students who were grappling with similar grammatical difficulties, but I had never considered the possibility that such apparently surface-level concerns could be manifestations of a deeper struggle between conflicting notions of selfhood. In the future, I will try to be even more sensitive to these types of concerns. Students from different types of backgrounds (and this does not simply means students from different countries) will inevitably carry with them a set of standards and norms that may or may not correspond to what we are teaching as “correct.” Because of this, I think it is very important that we make students aware that what we are teaching is simply a useful tool – a widely accepted set of standards and conventions that is accepted by the academic community as “correct.” If we continue to reinforce this point, perhaps some of the difficulty implied in the process of self definition will be allayed.
Filling Class Time
Most of Bean's small group tasks in chapter 9 could be incorporated into a composition course, and I think his book is a great resource for ideas to use in class. One of the challenges of teaching college composition is how best to use the class time for a course that is structured around three assignments-- obviously you want the class time to help prepare them for completing those assignments, but how much actually needs to be done, and what sorts of activities will actually key in on helping with the formal assignments?
In developing my lesson plans for my first essay, I'm trying to consider many things. First, what will help them to be better prepared for the formal writing. Second, what have I seen done in other college composition courses-- a day for peer review, a week for individual conferences--those sorts of things. Third, what skills that the formal writing is requiring should be given more class time-- not just for the benefit of writing the paper, but to better prepare the student for other college classes (which is, I think, one of the goals of college comp). For example, spending time on quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing not only helps with writing the formal essay, it also can help students to become better readers for other classes, so activities that help to improve their reading skills can be a great benefit.
Considering these questions is helping me to focus on what the classes should do, but also could do. After that, I think an important thing to consider is variety, and trying to engage the class in the material in some way. As Donna suggested last class, not every activity needs to be a group activity, and it certainly seems that having a variety of activities-- some full class discussions, some group activities, the rare, but focused, lecture-- is key to keeping the class from becoming stale and boring for both students and instructor alike. That's why I like Bean's suggestions, most of which could be adapted for our purposes, but each activity suggesting a slightly different approach.
I've
In developing my lesson plans for my first essay, I'm trying to consider many things. First, what will help them to be better prepared for the formal writing. Second, what have I seen done in other college composition courses-- a day for peer review, a week for individual conferences--those sorts of things. Third, what skills that the formal writing is requiring should be given more class time-- not just for the benefit of writing the paper, but to better prepare the student for other college classes (which is, I think, one of the goals of college comp). For example, spending time on quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing not only helps with writing the formal essay, it also can help students to become better readers for other classes, so activities that help to improve their reading skills can be a great benefit.
Considering these questions is helping me to focus on what the classes should do, but also could do. After that, I think an important thing to consider is variety, and trying to engage the class in the material in some way. As Donna suggested last class, not every activity needs to be a group activity, and it certainly seems that having a variety of activities-- some full class discussions, some group activities, the rare, but focused, lecture-- is key to keeping the class from becoming stale and boring for both students and instructor alike. That's why I like Bean's suggestions, most of which could be adapted for our purposes, but each activity suggesting a slightly different approach.
I've
Monday, March 5, 2007
Dear Shen: I don't like cheese either!
I think some of Bean’s ideas for group work this week seem effective, particularly the Frame Strategy (page 155). I used a similar strategy in the Writing Lab last semester, while working extensively with a student who has trouble brainstorming and organizing her essays. I devised a simple, clear sheet intended to map out the essay, a sort of Mad Libs, fill-in-the-blank for the assignment. After working together in the WL on the first draft using the map as a rough guide, she used the same map on her second paper at home and produced a noticeably improved essay. While some of her analysis needed a bit more work, her organizational skills were much better. I’d like to include this framing as a small group activity the first week of class, to introduce some ideas about structure and organization (problems nearly every student struggles with in the WL).
I think Shen’s essay offers valuable insight into the complexities of teaching composition to students with non-English backgrounds. Working with ESL students in the WL has certainly highlighted this complex issue. For example, last week I had an ESL student from Korea who had to analyze the initial depiction of Pop Art in Newsweek and Time. It was difficult to explain the subtle sarcasm of the magazines’ articles, particularly why something referred to as “ ‘serious art’ “ actually meant that the art was not serious, but frivolous, kitschy, etc. It made me question my own syllabus, assignments, and assigned readings. For example, the poems I’ve been considering for my close-reading assignment are all based in pop culture, which I assumed would seem more accessible and intriguing for freshmen. However, my interaction with the Korean tutee have lead me to realize that these poems might still offer difficulties for the non-American student.
Reading the excerpts of Shen’s essays on Wordsworth and WCW also raised some questions about my close-reading assignment. I found myself torn between my logical, Western tendency to offer some good ol’ fashioned WL advice, and my enthusiasm for Shen’s very interesting and engaging reaction to the poems. I’m not sure how I would grade similar papers. The ideas are wonderful, but should I mark off for structure/organization/development (for, as Leta pointed out, we are supposed to be teaching Western composition, a skill the student must learn eventually)?
I think Shen’s essay offers valuable insight into the complexities of teaching composition to students with non-English backgrounds. Working with ESL students in the WL has certainly highlighted this complex issue. For example, last week I had an ESL student from Korea who had to analyze the initial depiction of Pop Art in Newsweek and Time. It was difficult to explain the subtle sarcasm of the magazines’ articles, particularly why something referred to as “ ‘serious art’ “ actually meant that the art was not serious, but frivolous, kitschy, etc. It made me question my own syllabus, assignments, and assigned readings. For example, the poems I’ve been considering for my close-reading assignment are all based in pop culture, which I assumed would seem more accessible and intriguing for freshmen. However, my interaction with the Korean tutee have lead me to realize that these poems might still offer difficulties for the non-American student.
Reading the excerpts of Shen’s essays on Wordsworth and WCW also raised some questions about my close-reading assignment. I found myself torn between my logical, Western tendency to offer some good ol’ fashioned WL advice, and my enthusiasm for Shen’s very interesting and engaging reaction to the poems. I’m not sure how I would grade similar papers. The ideas are wonderful, but should I mark off for structure/organization/development (for, as Leta pointed out, we are supposed to be teaching Western composition, a skill the student must learn eventually)?
"Contact Zones" & "Globalization"
I thought the article from Starkweather and Smith regarding the use of “contact zones” was helpful. It gave me some ideas as to how I might deepen the discussions – and ultimately the writing of arguments – in class. I think my topic area, “Globalization,” would do well to be investigated from a variety of perspectives. It lends itself naturally to this sort of examination because globalization is, in fact, a complex subject. I realize now that there is some considerable danger in reducing the subject’s complexity to a simple pro and con argument. I understand this more fully as a result of reading this article. Now, I am thinking why not encourage the students to examine the “contact zones?” (“those social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power.” ) In truth, from just a general interest point of view, it would seem much more interesting to explore the subject
by incorporating these contact zones.
I was initially thinking of having my students read a long article on the pros/cons of globalization and then asking them use the reading to help them develop their arguments from that reading (opinions of optimism or pessimism with regard to the influence of globalization on humankind). I think I will still use that article, but I realize now that there is much more I can offer them.
I am thinking to investigate “contact zones” more thoroughly by way of film, chapters in books, and other sources that will present the students with a wide range of views involving the positions of different governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and so forth. I would like to develop a way, as outlined in the article, of analyzing the argument that are made by speakers/writers from these different contact zones. I am not sure yet what each formal assignment will contain precisely, but I am thinking that I would like to build the students’ awareness of the arguments being made in the different zones during the first two or three assignments. The a final formal assignment would ask the students to take into account all that they have read throughout the course on the subject of globalization and argue a position. Perhaps, as the article points out, the students will, as a result of this, become more critical readers and writers, and thus more able to write beyond the simple pro/con argument and write arguments “rooted in moderate ground,” contingent and provisional.
by incorporating these contact zones.
I was initially thinking of having my students read a long article on the pros/cons of globalization and then asking them use the reading to help them develop their arguments from that reading (opinions of optimism or pessimism with regard to the influence of globalization on humankind). I think I will still use that article, but I realize now that there is much more I can offer them.
I am thinking to investigate “contact zones” more thoroughly by way of film, chapters in books, and other sources that will present the students with a wide range of views involving the positions of different governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and so forth. I would like to develop a way, as outlined in the article, of analyzing the argument that are made by speakers/writers from these different contact zones. I am not sure yet what each formal assignment will contain precisely, but I am thinking that I would like to build the students’ awareness of the arguments being made in the different zones during the first two or three assignments. The a final formal assignment would ask the students to take into account all that they have read throughout the course on the subject of globalization and argue a position. Perhaps, as the article points out, the students will, as a result of this, become more critical readers and writers, and thus more able to write beyond the simple pro/con argument and write arguments “rooted in moderate ground,” contingent and provisional.
Lesson Plans as Contact Zones
Like Leta, I was really intrigued with Muksian-Schutt's incorporation of contact zones to the composition course. I think that encouraging students to do research beyond a simple pro/con stance is something I would really like to include in my lesson plans, but I am not yet sure of how to do that.
My first instinct is maybe to introduce the idea of "continuum" to the course — that is, in order to avoid the binary construct that pro/con sometimes leads into, I would like to find a way for students to understand those ideological spaces that Muksian-Schutt says "are [not] clearly defined, creating confusion for students as to where they can enter a conversation" (339-40). If a continuum is one way to approach this topic, this will also help keep a contact zone from becoming a conflict zone.
In many ways, I was reminded of Gregory's activity that we did in class last week, delineating some of the pros and cons of globalization or internationalism. Some of us saw "learning about other cultures" as a pro, but others of us thought this "learning" was the first step to one culture "correcting a backwards culture" in a fit of neo-colonialism. This shows how not all "pro" statements are "pro" for everyone, and I think that cultural/social differences are a primary reason that these overlaps become contact zones.
I got a lot of new perspectives from this reading that I am thinking of incorporating in my (continuously-)revised syllabus. I think I will still include "biases" as a running theme to the course, but perhaps not in ways that have so much potential to become confrontational. I would like to explore some typical biases (race, gender, class, age, etc.), but I am not sure I would be able to lead an entire semester with these themes. Anyone who can is either much braver or much better-read on the issues than I am.
My first instinct is maybe to introduce the idea of "continuum" to the course — that is, in order to avoid the binary construct that pro/con sometimes leads into, I would like to find a way for students to understand those ideological spaces that Muksian-Schutt says "are [not] clearly defined, creating confusion for students as to where they can enter a conversation" (339-40). If a continuum is one way to approach this topic, this will also help keep a contact zone from becoming a conflict zone.
In many ways, I was reminded of Gregory's activity that we did in class last week, delineating some of the pros and cons of globalization or internationalism. Some of us saw "learning about other cultures" as a pro, but others of us thought this "learning" was the first step to one culture "correcting a backwards culture" in a fit of neo-colonialism. This shows how not all "pro" statements are "pro" for everyone, and I think that cultural/social differences are a primary reason that these overlaps become contact zones.
I got a lot of new perspectives from this reading that I am thinking of incorporating in my (continuously-)revised syllabus. I think I will still include "biases" as a running theme to the course, but perhaps not in ways that have so much potential to become confrontational. I would like to explore some typical biases (race, gender, class, age, etc.), but I am not sure I would be able to lead an entire semester with these themes. Anyone who can is either much braver or much better-read on the issues than I am.
Contact zones, barrooms, and cultural interactions
I found all of the readings in the Barnett text fascinating this week, particularly the Muksian-Schutt text about "contact zones." Actually, all of the readings from Barnett can be looked at as dealing with contact zones, if we use the Pratt definition of contact zones as "those social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power" (Muksian-Schutt 339).
In the Lindquist text, about life at the "Smokehouse," the cultural clashing takes place between different subcultures within U.S. society. Even though both the working class people she writes about and the intellectual class people she addresses both can be considered part of the broad heading of "American society," in a way they are parts of very distinct cultures. Class can/does help shape a group's identity and culture, and I think that Virginia Anderson asks a powerful question about how academics deal with other (sub)cultures: "'What if the real solidarity that appeals to activist teachers is not that solidarity we might acheive with our students, but rather the unity and satisfaction we find in our radical stance?" (qtd in Lindquiest 184). I, for one, feel that this warning is meant for me: Can I teach writing in a non-classist way, realizing that not everyone participates in my academic mindset, valuing learning for its own sake, and that it is alright that they don't?
The Shen text deals with a clash between cultures with more obvious differences. However, she makes it clear that the differences are larger than I had realized and that students from different cultures experience the power-imbalance of the classroom much differently than do American students. I hadn't realized what huge differences there are between Chinese and English styles of composition. Although I do think that it is important that we require international students in our classes to learn to write in traditional Western forms (actually, I think we would be doing them a disservice if we did not, considering that they are now students at an American university and will be required to use these forms in the future), Shen has helped me to understand more clearly the challenges these students face, and this, I hope, will make me a better teacher.
I appreciated Muksian-Schutt's description of how she has used contact zones in her classroom. I would also like to use the idea of contact zones in my classroom, with regard to issues such as immigration, the Iraq war, the death penalty, etc. She uses very specific examples of clashes taking place; I don't believe I will structure my class around anything as specific as her two death penalty cases. I'm still trying to decide what theme(s) to focus on in my class. Does anyone have suggestions about how to use the idea of contact zones in a less focused manner than Muksian-Schutt uses?
In the Lindquist text, about life at the "Smokehouse," the cultural clashing takes place between different subcultures within U.S. society. Even though both the working class people she writes about and the intellectual class people she addresses both can be considered part of the broad heading of "American society," in a way they are parts of very distinct cultures. Class can/does help shape a group's identity and culture, and I think that Virginia Anderson asks a powerful question about how academics deal with other (sub)cultures: "'What if the real solidarity that appeals to activist teachers is not that solidarity we might acheive with our students, but rather the unity and satisfaction we find in our radical stance?" (qtd in Lindquiest 184). I, for one, feel that this warning is meant for me: Can I teach writing in a non-classist way, realizing that not everyone participates in my academic mindset, valuing learning for its own sake, and that it is alright that they don't?
The Shen text deals with a clash between cultures with more obvious differences. However, she makes it clear that the differences are larger than I had realized and that students from different cultures experience the power-imbalance of the classroom much differently than do American students. I hadn't realized what huge differences there are between Chinese and English styles of composition. Although I do think that it is important that we require international students in our classes to learn to write in traditional Western forms (actually, I think we would be doing them a disservice if we did not, considering that they are now students at an American university and will be required to use these forms in the future), Shen has helped me to understand more clearly the challenges these students face, and this, I hope, will make me a better teacher.
I appreciated Muksian-Schutt's description of how she has used contact zones in her classroom. I would also like to use the idea of contact zones in my classroom, with regard to issues such as immigration, the Iraq war, the death penalty, etc. She uses very specific examples of clashes taking place; I don't believe I will structure my class around anything as specific as her two death penalty cases. I'm still trying to decide what theme(s) to focus on in my class. Does anyone have suggestions about how to use the idea of contact zones in a less focused manner than Muksian-Schutt uses?
Thursday, March 1, 2007
New blogging policy
For the benefit of those who had to miss class today, I'd like to summarize the new blogging policy that we agreed to:
(1) Only one new blog entry per week is required
(2) Each week, your new blog entry needs to be posted by Tuesday at noon
(3) You'll continue to comment on at least two entries per week.
(1) Only one new blog entry per week is required
(2) Each week, your new blog entry needs to be posted by Tuesday at noon
(3) You'll continue to comment on at least two entries per week.
Bibliographies
As I mentioned in class, I would like each of you to choose a topic to investigate for the reading clusters assignment discussed in the syllabus. You'll choose a topic (say, peer review, grading, designing assignments, diversity) and find 4-5 relevant articles. You'll then summarize your findings, giving particular attention to what seem to be best practices on that topic. You won't need to give a presentation to the class, however. We just won't have time! But the idea is to present the information in a user-friendly way on the wiki.
Rebecca Moore Howard of Syracuse University has compiled bibliographies on many composition-related topics. You might want to take a look at her bibliographies as a starting point:
http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/bibs.html
Rebecca Moore Howard of Syracuse University has compiled bibliographies on many composition-related topics. You might want to take a look at her bibliographies as a starting point:
http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/bibs.html
Reading, 'riting, and rhetoric
The idea of critical reflexivity seems to be about convincing students to be invested in their own learning- whether it's motivating them to read, to write, or to participate in class. Granted, there are some students who will simply refuse to participate in any way, even for their own good (the Bartleby club). But for those who can be convinced, the question is how? As others have pointed out, Salvatori consciously shies from producing "transportable tips or prescriptives" (359); the very practical suggestions from Bean, Curzan & Damour address this partially but not as far as we'd like. Would students bother to read if they know their writing will be evaluated but not graded? My high school French teacher assigned quizzes each and every day of class, and that was practically the entire basis for our grade. Doing something similar in Comp probably wouldn't work, if only for fear of violating the 90/10 rule for grading. I suppose there could be a daily (or even weekly) graded sample, but this would be time-consuming. Salvatori points out the oddity that "our educational system has consistently opted for simplifying solutions every time it has been confronted with the inherent and inescapable complexity of educational issues" (357). You can see this in Bean, even, with the exhortation to reduce time spent on writing comments and grading in general. I strongly dislike grading on participation as well, as a former lurker in discussion sections. Maybe the solution is in Salvatori's suggestion that teaching reading and writing should be "something teachers do _with_ their students" rather than to or for the students. Or maybe I need to read all the books Court's reading.
How far can you stretch a metaphor before it snaps, Bean?
As I read the eighth chapter of John Bean’s book, I thought about how effective writing could be used to teach better reading (when I wasn’t being impressed—and obviously distracted—by his ability to stretch the fishing metaphor). As a student, I have found that being forced to respond to texts through writing has helped me to engage with the texts at a deeper level, as Bean suggests. Asking students to respond to good questions about the text, I have found, is also an effective way to help students begin to notice problems with the text, leading to critical analysis. Besides requiring students to keep a journal of their responses, I plan to require that they play the “believing and doubting game” that Bean mentions (having read about in Elbow’s work)—perhaps in class. I think this activity will be especially helpful as my students look at criticism of the literature they read, encouraging them to take a similarly critical position in their papers.
For my English 1000 course, I do plan to assign my students some reading—definitely either a novel or a few short stories. Since my students will be analyzing a novel or short story of their choosing, I want them to have an opportunity to see how it is done. I also plan to assign some reading on how to analyze film, so they will have the technical vocabulary that they will need for their paper. In addition, I am considering assigning a few works of criticism or perhaps a few sample papers so that students get an idea of how others analyze literature. In class, I plan to work from students’ written responses about the reading to spark discussion.
For my English 1000 course, I do plan to assign my students some reading—definitely either a novel or a few short stories. Since my students will be analyzing a novel or short story of their choosing, I want them to have an opportunity to see how it is done. I also plan to assign some reading on how to analyze film, so they will have the technical vocabulary that they will need for their paper. In addition, I am considering assigning a few works of criticism or perhaps a few sample papers so that students get an idea of how others analyze literature. In class, I plan to work from students’ written responses about the reading to spark discussion.
Getting Beyond the Passive Voice
In Chapter 4, Curzan and Damour provide an example of a reading assignment that I think I will probably modify and employ in the classroom. They suggest that one could "Have students mark all the passive constructions in a lab write-up and then talk about how use of passive constructions affects the tone of the writing" (49). I think that I would rather bring in a short, literary essay composed entirely or almost entirely in the passive voice. First, I would deliver a short explanation of what the passive voice is, how it functions, and how it is appropriate to some forms of writing (for instance, much scientific writing) but not to all. We could then, as a class, read the essay and identify the passive constructions (if I have a laptop connection, I will highlight the phrases we identify with the Word highlighter tool). We can then go back through the essay as a group and think of ways to change the passive voice to the active.
When we have finished our group revision, we can compare the original, passive voice essay to the revised, active voice essay and discuss the impact of the changes. I think this type of activity would help to break students of the habit of always writing in the passive voice (it is, after all, an easy and lazy method of avoiding an expanded vocabulary through the manipulation of "being" verbs). I had a teacher in high school who forced the entire class out of the passive voice by deducting 5 points each time she found a passive construction in an essay. Needless to say, most of us figured out what the passive voice was rather quickly and learned how to think differently by employing different sentence structures. I don't plan to be quite so Draconian in my grading (at least of first drafts), but I will isolate each awkward, passive phrase that I find in student drafts and try to get them to move towards new thought-forms. After all, language is inseparable from thought, and awkward writing is a sign of unclear thinking. By encouraging students to reformulate stagnant phrases, we are actually pushing them towards new ways of thinking.
When we have finished our group revision, we can compare the original, passive voice essay to the revised, active voice essay and discuss the impact of the changes. I think this type of activity would help to break students of the habit of always writing in the passive voice (it is, after all, an easy and lazy method of avoiding an expanded vocabulary through the manipulation of "being" verbs). I had a teacher in high school who forced the entire class out of the passive voice by deducting 5 points each time she found a passive construction in an essay. Needless to say, most of us figured out what the passive voice was rather quickly and learned how to think differently by employing different sentence structures. I don't plan to be quite so Draconian in my grading (at least of first drafts), but I will isolate each awkward, passive phrase that I find in student drafts and try to get them to move towards new thought-forms. After all, language is inseparable from thought, and awkward writing is a sign of unclear thinking. By encouraging students to reformulate stagnant phrases, we are actually pushing them towards new ways of thinking.
More Reading Thoughts
Even though I found the readings this week to be insightful about the problems students encounter when reading and useful ways to combat these problems, I am still left with the thought of how to make students interested in reading. As a high school teacher (sorry if you are all tired of this point by now), I found that no matter what I assigned with the reading or what activities were incorporated, some students simply did not read no matter what. Unfortunately, I believe a big factor in this is that the information seems to be easily accessed elsewhere, even if it is not quite the same (i.e. movies). Students don't seem to understand how much a text changes when it is translated onto screen due to the interpretation and the desire to target certain audiences. My question, then, is whether there is any true way to get students more interested in the actual reading. The techniques in today's assignments may make the reading less intimidating over time, but it still won't give them the motivation to want to read. I agree that a more active classroom environment will help because it creates interest in the material. I love Liz's idea about the poetry reading. I used to make my students mingle as if at a party and they could only use a quote from Shakespeare I gave them on a piece of paper. I was surprised how many could actually understand their quote by the end. Still, I don't think it made them want to read more Shakespeare. Any thoughts on how to motivate? I feel a bit out of ideas.
John Wayne
The reading assignments I’ve devised focus first paper, which will require a close reading of a poem. Using Salvatori’s article for inspiration, I’d like one of the assignments to demonstrate how different readings of a poem alter the reader’s perception of the poem’s themes, and consequently, the reader’s argument about that poem. I’m going to ask for 3-5 volunteers to read the same poem aloud to class, giving them a week to prepare. I’ll assign each student a different persona—for example, one student will read the poem in a sad voice, or elated tone, or perhaps something sillier, like reading the poem as John Wayne. I’d probably pick a poem open to various interpretations/readings. The following week, all the students will listen to each reading in succession, followed by a discussion of how the poem’s themes and meaning changed with each reading. We’ll talk about how the various details (i.e. tone, attention to line breaks, etc) emphasized or overlooked by different readers changes the poem’s significance. I’m hoping that this discussion will elucidate how the act of reading and speaking can transform the reader’s understanding of the poem, since the close reading assignment calls for an argument that interprets the poem.
I’d also like to incorporate an activity like the one Donna used a couple weeks ago, where we evaluated an essay for a grade. I’d like to have students read several papers outside class and make a list of the good and bad points of each paper. They’ll bring these notes to class for a discussion of what constitutes a strong paper. This will most likely be one of the first homework assignments, one that I hope will encourage them to critically examine their own papers.
I’d also like to incorporate an activity like the one Donna used a couple weeks ago, where we evaluated an essay for a grade. I’d like to have students read several papers outside class and make a list of the good and bad points of each paper. They’ll bring these notes to class for a discussion of what constitutes a strong paper. This will most likely be one of the first homework assignments, one that I hope will encourage them to critically examine their own papers.
Salvatori
Though I found the Salvatori piece to be interesting and somewhat useful, at the end I did not feel as empowered how to bridge the gap of understanding (the importance) between reading and writing for Eng 1000 students as I had hoped I would be. However, I absolutely loved her assertion on pg. 349 as regards to the task at hand is not whether reading should be used in a comp course, but rather “which kind of reading gets to be theorized and practiced.” Once again because readings are so crucial to my course, I am finding it most difficult to pick and chose which ones should be used—which ones are intriguing enough for the topic at hand while not being burdensome for the student. I do not think Salvatori’s argument/explanation helped to answer this question for me. It gave me some tips about the dangers of highlighting, and of course helped to point out some aspects of “reading as a means of teaching writing” (347) that I think should be opened up to a larger class discussion to gain the knowledge of if the actual students believe what she is theorizing essentially about them, to be true.
Nonetheless, it was informative as I find all our readings to be—but Bean definitely won this week for its usefulness.
Nonetheless, it was informative as I find all our readings to be—but Bean definitely won this week for its usefulness.
Reading assignments (again)
When I posted earlier this week, I was thinking of what types of things to assign my students to read, without thinking as much about how I would like students to read. So, going back to my previous post, I mentioned that I would like students to read some examples of student writing, perhaps even some of my old writing. Perhaps the reading assignment could be something like this:
Read the following paper written by an undergraduate. In a one-page paper, answer the following questions: What is the thesis? What is the argument (if it's different from the thesis)? What points does the author use to support his/her argument? What evidence does he/she use? What arguments can you use to counter the speaker's claims? Does the author anticipate these counterarguments? Is the argument convincing?
(This would likely be followed up with a short reflection paper in which students could describe what they have learned about their own writing from the assignment).
I like Bean's suggestion that we forbid students to highlight or underline passages. I think that this is a brilliant suggestion. I would hate it, but I think it's brilliant. I would love to do something with this. Maybe (again) if I were to have them start with student writing, they would not be as hesitant to criticize what the author is doing and I could use that as a gateway to criticizing published texts.
Another thing that Bean suggested that I really like is showing students my marked-up readings and marginalia. I've actually done this in the writing lab when I've talked about critical reading. I don't usually show them precisely what it says, but rather use it to show that they should be engaged with the reading and should mark what they find intriguing so that they can find it later. If we have a shared text, like we would in an English 1000 class, however, I think that it would be particularly helpful for them to see how I've marked the text. Yet, I don't want to impose my reading on them either, so I would want to stress that that is just my interpretation. It just happens to be the right one :-D
Read the following paper written by an undergraduate. In a one-page paper, answer the following questions: What is the thesis? What is the argument (if it's different from the thesis)? What points does the author use to support his/her argument? What evidence does he/she use? What arguments can you use to counter the speaker's claims? Does the author anticipate these counterarguments? Is the argument convincing?
(This would likely be followed up with a short reflection paper in which students could describe what they have learned about their own writing from the assignment).
I like Bean's suggestion that we forbid students to highlight or underline passages. I think that this is a brilliant suggestion. I would hate it, but I think it's brilliant. I would love to do something with this. Maybe (again) if I were to have them start with student writing, they would not be as hesitant to criticize what the author is doing and I could use that as a gateway to criticizing published texts.
Another thing that Bean suggested that I really like is showing students my marked-up readings and marginalia. I've actually done this in the writing lab when I've talked about critical reading. I don't usually show them precisely what it says, but rather use it to show that they should be engaged with the reading and should mark what they find intriguing so that they can find it later. If we have a shared text, like we would in an English 1000 class, however, I think that it would be particularly helpful for them to see how I've marked the text. Yet, I don't want to impose my reading on them either, so I would want to stress that that is just my interpretation. It just happens to be the right one :-D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)