I was assigned the task of summing up my life in six words. I couldn’t think of simply one six word vignette. So I wrote six six word meme. I feel this is actually a fairly clever innovation (or poetic method of cheating).
Training wheels are optional in Missouri
You have friends, why need more?
Holy Antiquating Postmodern Emo Mystification Batman!
Resistance is Futile, Contrary to Fact
We’ll die, what we write lives
Excrement thinking is worthy of seconds
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Teaching writing as a process, not teaching a process of writing
I am not sure how I would use writing What We Teach. I see it as dangerous if presented in the wrong manner or overtly cautious or overtly reckless. I do see the benefits in having a Textual Analysis on hand which corresponds to what we wish our students to produce, but I am not sure I want to show my process to my students. I inherently write in a process which cannot be really reproduced. It changes on the assignment and how well I know the materials. A simple analysis like this, I will write it knowing exactly what I feel about the text and what I want to say about it with final proofreading and logic checking at the end. But the rough draft and final draft are almost identical in nature. Whereas if I have a 20 page marathon paper over the definition and application of the romanticized ideological author in the Post-modern literary world, it may involve some heavy outlining, note taking, revising, and other nuances of a process.
Presenting the assignment is teaching them how to think towards the assignment. They can see some an example of the thinking needed to produce an agreeable text. Whereas presenting a process may in fact run the risk of teaching them a process not their own. If I had multiple examples of multiple processes at work, I would feel highly inclined to utilize it as different methods would be presented. The fear of a dogmatized instructor process would not plague me.
This is not to say I think all processes are good, but a process is something which occurs naturally and appears purely in the academic setting. I do feel teaching writing as a process is a superior method, but I am not comfortable with teaching a process of writing which is what I fear presenting my process to my students will do.
I can already think of multiple comments, negative responses specifically, which could be presented towards this thinking. I will respond as needed..or wanted.
Presenting the assignment is teaching them how to think towards the assignment. They can see some an example of the thinking needed to produce an agreeable text. Whereas presenting a process may in fact run the risk of teaching them a process not their own. If I had multiple examples of multiple processes at work, I would feel highly inclined to utilize it as different methods would be presented. The fear of a dogmatized instructor process would not plague me.
This is not to say I think all processes are good, but a process is something which occurs naturally and appears purely in the academic setting. I do feel teaching writing as a process is a superior method, but I am not comfortable with teaching a process of writing which is what I fear presenting my process to my students will do.
I can already think of multiple comments, negative responses specifically, which could be presented towards this thinking. I will respond as needed..or wanted.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Let us teach you to write so we can learn to read
Given the prompt, which we are all aware and need no rehashing of, I am of several minds on the issue and am glad I waited this long to reply.
If such requirements were part of my syllabus and my demands of the students were as such and made clear, I personally would follow the same path Eric did by simply working with the students and stressing, with the possibility of sticker punishments as the problem persists.
But this all rides on me putting these requirements in my syllabus which I don’t. I really am not sure why this is even an issue. I see the value in the additional materials in assessing the student’s progress, but let’s not fluff the idea of process as the academic setting may be one of the few times that someone will be required to submit a process over a product. The inherent problems I have with holding back their grade or potentially failing them for not turning in required materials is that it does not show their understanding or comprehension of the material or ability to write. An outstanding process does not necessitate an outstanding writer and vice versa and we must decide what we want our students to be and we will swarm to them being good writers. We teach process in order to make them better writers, but even then the idea of the process being best is still in debate as many of us have been instructed in a product view. I simply can’t justify basing a student grade on turning in something besides the final product.
But I feel Jacob brings up a really great point in his blog which I will summarize and not reiterate. Go read his if you want a better concept of it. He essentially wrote that we are encouraged to be more lenient in our grading of students. We have personal heartfelt strings pulling us in multiple directions but we are pulled institutionally towards the lenient side. I thoroughly agree with this.
I have actually had a conversation dealing with this issue with several friends. MSU does not wish to cater towards the privileged, or “elite”. MSU seeks to cater to a wider and not as selective audience, giving more individuals a chance of a college education and thus opportunity to further their lives. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant, but in catering to the under-privileged, we have, as Jacob stated, lowered our desire to enforce harsher penalties and have become lenient. The assumption is that the masses are not as responsible as the “elite” and deserve special leniency. If we wish to be truly cynical, if the harsher penalties are enforced, the student drops out and someone does not receive the tuition check which would be coming in. Wonder where that line of thinking came from.
But I am still mixed. I am naturally lenient, taking to heart what Dr. Weaver asked, “Would you rather have a good paper later or a bad paper on time?” The whole concept of looking at 110 as a job is flawed I feel as the setting and perception is entirely different and incomparable except on the vague concept of projects. The pay-checks don’t even float the right way. I handle this on a case-by-case basis of who the student is and their attempts at progress. But also I recognize this really isn’t holding them to the standard of an educated person as society will want to hold them to for having a college degree. I am still having personal wars with this and have more to say, but this a long entry and I may be rambling. So I am going to shut up.
If such requirements were part of my syllabus and my demands of the students were as such and made clear, I personally would follow the same path Eric did by simply working with the students and stressing, with the possibility of sticker punishments as the problem persists.
But this all rides on me putting these requirements in my syllabus which I don’t. I really am not sure why this is even an issue. I see the value in the additional materials in assessing the student’s progress, but let’s not fluff the idea of process as the academic setting may be one of the few times that someone will be required to submit a process over a product. The inherent problems I have with holding back their grade or potentially failing them for not turning in required materials is that it does not show their understanding or comprehension of the material or ability to write. An outstanding process does not necessitate an outstanding writer and vice versa and we must decide what we want our students to be and we will swarm to them being good writers. We teach process in order to make them better writers, but even then the idea of the process being best is still in debate as many of us have been instructed in a product view. I simply can’t justify basing a student grade on turning in something besides the final product.
But I feel Jacob brings up a really great point in his blog which I will summarize and not reiterate. Go read his if you want a better concept of it. He essentially wrote that we are encouraged to be more lenient in our grading of students. We have personal heartfelt strings pulling us in multiple directions but we are pulled institutionally towards the lenient side. I thoroughly agree with this.
I have actually had a conversation dealing with this issue with several friends. MSU does not wish to cater towards the privileged, or “elite”. MSU seeks to cater to a wider and not as selective audience, giving more individuals a chance of a college education and thus opportunity to further their lives. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant, but in catering to the under-privileged, we have, as Jacob stated, lowered our desire to enforce harsher penalties and have become lenient. The assumption is that the masses are not as responsible as the “elite” and deserve special leniency. If we wish to be truly cynical, if the harsher penalties are enforced, the student drops out and someone does not receive the tuition check which would be coming in. Wonder where that line of thinking came from.
But I am still mixed. I am naturally lenient, taking to heart what Dr. Weaver asked, “Would you rather have a good paper later or a bad paper on time?” The whole concept of looking at 110 as a job is flawed I feel as the setting and perception is entirely different and incomparable except on the vague concept of projects. The pay-checks don’t even float the right way. I handle this on a case-by-case basis of who the student is and their attempts at progress. But also I recognize this really isn’t holding them to the standard of an educated person as society will want to hold them to for having a college degree. I am still having personal wars with this and have more to say, but this a long entry and I may be rambling. So I am going to shut up.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Literature is the rebel without a cause boyfriend to Father Composition
Bringing my focus/area of emphasis has always been a slight challenge. For starters, I in a way treat the different areas of English as summer jackets and winter coats, trying each one to see how it fits and if it keeps me warm only to find that it may do the job at this moment, but it fails miserably and suffocates me later on. I am officially am focusing on Literature for grad school (I have a penchant for contemporary short story) but find it hard to remove the creative writing undergrad….so just to be high brow, difficult, and a general nuisance to some, I try and bring both to the 110 classroom.
I use story telling rhetoric in my class unconsciously. I always tell them to treat their papers like stories, you can’t move from point in the plot without taking care of this other point just as you can’t progress your paper without tying up some of these loose ends. I encourage them to build their papers around concrete examples and in some cases create a hypothetical character or problem to help ground their reader in a specific scene. A short story and typical academic paper are strikingly similar, both attempting to convey thought and a message but use mediums which differ on the…well…on the chromosome level to be honest.
Literature…well since Literature is apparently the rebel without a cause boyfriend Father Composition doesn’t want dating his daughter 110 Students, it is a little more difficult to get the two sneaking out together at night. But all my research examples deal with literature along with many of my academic analysis examples. I use A Modest Proposal (thanks for the idea Moses), Shirley Jacksons “The Lottery” as a text to analyze, the critical methods applied to literature are now applied to basic essays, articles, and other venues in order to deepen the student’s awareness. If they don't come out of the class knowing at least one author they did not know before, they didn't show up for about a 1/3rd of the class.
I use story telling rhetoric in my class unconsciously. I always tell them to treat their papers like stories, you can’t move from point in the plot without taking care of this other point just as you can’t progress your paper without tying up some of these loose ends. I encourage them to build their papers around concrete examples and in some cases create a hypothetical character or problem to help ground their reader in a specific scene. A short story and typical academic paper are strikingly similar, both attempting to convey thought and a message but use mediums which differ on the…well…on the chromosome level to be honest.
Literature…well since Literature is apparently the rebel without a cause boyfriend Father Composition doesn’t want dating his daughter 110 Students, it is a little more difficult to get the two sneaking out together at night. But all my research examples deal with literature along with many of my academic analysis examples. I use A Modest Proposal (thanks for the idea Moses), Shirley Jacksons “The Lottery” as a text to analyze, the critical methods applied to literature are now applied to basic essays, articles, and other venues in order to deepen the student’s awareness. If they don't come out of the class knowing at least one author they did not know before, they didn't show up for about a 1/3rd of the class.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Is it the teacher or student's fault?
For those of you who have not heard, there is a rather healthy lot of us who take 621. And in that healthy lot, we all are supposed to have English 100 student who we are supposed to tutor. Setting aside all political implications of “basic writer” and “tutoring”, I need to have a cathartic moment as new and personally jarring thoughts have come to mind in the wake of one of these tutoring sessions.
In multiple classes, we talk of “empowering” the student. Making the student “take hold and control” of their education. There have been theories thrown around of “liberating” the student. We want the student to be “master” and “direct” their education. I tend to agree with these. I want the student to be self-sufficient and capable of operating in the fields of discourse unaided and unbridled. In addition to these theories of student supremacy, the question has always been asked but never fully answered, “Where does the teacher fit in?” And we thus are the “empowerer”, “liberator”, “director”, or whatever type of “-er” you prefer. I don’t think I am the only one who feels this, in a way, alters the role of the teacher in the classroom from authority to companion of sorts. I am not saying all teachers adhere to this model, but it is certainly one we all have heard. I have now decided that this mode of thinking is escapist, delusional, and self-perpetuating to a near harmful level.
In this mode of thinking, when the student fails, the blame falls primarily on the students shoulders. The teacher is a companion offering opportunity which the student fails to grasp and take hold of. I understand that this may not be how anyone views it, but it certainly is the implication. In placing the blame on the student, we remove a decent size portion of the blame from ourselves. And this type of rhetoric is inherent in the discipline of teaching. “I don’t give grades, student earn them.” “All the other students understood the assignment, why not this one?” “I can’t help stupid.” There others we all can think of, but I feel you can get the gist of what I mean.
I know/understand/realize that there are several students we simply cannot get to; the ones who sit in the back of class flipping the bird for the full hour or the ones who come to a whole two class periods. But what I am primarily worried about is that the current line of thinking unintentionally removes the teacher from a certain level of blame. With shifting the role of the teacher from less of authority to the companion, we not only give the students power and responsibility, but we remove it from the teacher and decrease the amount of responsibility they have towards the class. So if the student fails, we absolve ourselves from blame. In the most exaggerated sense, it is a way to say, “It’s ok that the student didn’t learn to write. It’s not your fault.”
In multiple classes, we talk of “empowering” the student. Making the student “take hold and control” of their education. There have been theories thrown around of “liberating” the student. We want the student to be “master” and “direct” their education. I tend to agree with these. I want the student to be self-sufficient and capable of operating in the fields of discourse unaided and unbridled. In addition to these theories of student supremacy, the question has always been asked but never fully answered, “Where does the teacher fit in?” And we thus are the “empowerer”, “liberator”, “director”, or whatever type of “-er” you prefer. I don’t think I am the only one who feels this, in a way, alters the role of the teacher in the classroom from authority to companion of sorts. I am not saying all teachers adhere to this model, but it is certainly one we all have heard. I have now decided that this mode of thinking is escapist, delusional, and self-perpetuating to a near harmful level.
In this mode of thinking, when the student fails, the blame falls primarily on the students shoulders. The teacher is a companion offering opportunity which the student fails to grasp and take hold of. I understand that this may not be how anyone views it, but it certainly is the implication. In placing the blame on the student, we remove a decent size portion of the blame from ourselves. And this type of rhetoric is inherent in the discipline of teaching. “I don’t give grades, student earn them.” “All the other students understood the assignment, why not this one?” “I can’t help stupid.” There others we all can think of, but I feel you can get the gist of what I mean.
I know/understand/realize that there are several students we simply cannot get to; the ones who sit in the back of class flipping the bird for the full hour or the ones who come to a whole two class periods. But what I am primarily worried about is that the current line of thinking unintentionally removes the teacher from a certain level of blame. With shifting the role of the teacher from less of authority to the companion, we not only give the students power and responsibility, but we remove it from the teacher and decrease the amount of responsibility they have towards the class. So if the student fails, we absolve ourselves from blame. In the most exaggerated sense, it is a way to say, “It’s ok that the student didn’t learn to write. It’s not your fault.”
Friday, February 29, 2008
Words, words, words, mores words....and just for good measure some mords
I don’t feel this lends itself that strongly to any particular teaching issue and is one we inherently are all aware of, but I feel it makes for an interesting side note if not grand old fiesta.
When I taught the textual analysis last semester, I approached it in a very concrete method. I showed them questions they would have to answer along with outlines for how they could proceed and structure papers. It was sequential and very document like where all they would have to do is go through a step by step approach. I included activities where we analyzed different documents and used different methods in different genres, but it was all sub to the very sequential and step by step approach.
I know what every one is saying, “That isn’t teaching them to do anything! They just sit there and churn out a few damn sentences to meet your damn requirements for your damn assignment for your damn class and this damn university.” Well, minus all the expletives, I feel you are very correct good colleagues. But I defend myself by the assumption I had that they already knew how to analyze and approach a text critically. They critically approach sports and movies, the transition to a text should be no problem.
And it is at this point that you may lay forth the claim of what an assumption is. “You know Kevin, all you do when you assume is make ASS out of U and ME. And now you made asses out of your students. Way to go and keep up all the work.” Well, I appreciate your concern for me keeping up the work because I needed to.
The approach failed not miserably, but failed reasonably. They missed many of the marks and all they did was churn out very short papers answering all the questions I gave them to answer, but nothing more. The horror! There was no deep analysis or flavor or feel. No voice, no joy. No disrespect or shouts of “Yes! It’s correct!” Merely, “He says this, and I feel that, but he may be abstract.” Through conferences, I got them on the right track.
So for this semester I jostled it up a bit. I hit them with different documents, movies, songs, and posters to analyze. I had these two posters with Japanese characters on them. One was clearly geared towards females and clearly towards males. We looked at them as a class and did an analysis of them worthy of any class, undergraduate and graduate. I helped them arrive at this position where they were honestly great at analyzing and could make the transition from sports team to written document.
Then I got the rough drafts and all was not sunshine and roses. They were all over the place. No order or rhyme or clairvoyant sign. No structure, no rhythm, nothing tied together, not even with a nice little ribbon.
Given we had a few more class periods before the final drafts were due, I quickly rebounded and realized the mistake and brought all the outlines and questions that my last class turned into bland sequential documents in order to corral the mental wonderings. While I still have to receive the final drafts, the marked improvement I have seen while having conferences with students is uplifting and encouraging. They see what they did and should have done.
This is just more of an answer to, “How much should I focus on one aspect versus the other.” The assignment requires both aspects and each class will respond differently to different stimuli. Everyone probably has their own reflections on the Textual Analysis and methods and situations have failed miserably. Please share for fun if you have the time.
When I taught the textual analysis last semester, I approached it in a very concrete method. I showed them questions they would have to answer along with outlines for how they could proceed and structure papers. It was sequential and very document like where all they would have to do is go through a step by step approach. I included activities where we analyzed different documents and used different methods in different genres, but it was all sub to the very sequential and step by step approach.
I know what every one is saying, “That isn’t teaching them to do anything! They just sit there and churn out a few damn sentences to meet your damn requirements for your damn assignment for your damn class and this damn university.” Well, minus all the expletives, I feel you are very correct good colleagues. But I defend myself by the assumption I had that they already knew how to analyze and approach a text critically. They critically approach sports and movies, the transition to a text should be no problem.
And it is at this point that you may lay forth the claim of what an assumption is. “You know Kevin, all you do when you assume is make ASS out of U and ME. And now you made asses out of your students. Way to go and keep up all the work.” Well, I appreciate your concern for me keeping up the work because I needed to.
The approach failed not miserably, but failed reasonably. They missed many of the marks and all they did was churn out very short papers answering all the questions I gave them to answer, but nothing more. The horror! There was no deep analysis or flavor or feel. No voice, no joy. No disrespect or shouts of “Yes! It’s correct!” Merely, “He says this, and I feel that, but he may be abstract.” Through conferences, I got them on the right track.
So for this semester I jostled it up a bit. I hit them with different documents, movies, songs, and posters to analyze. I had these two posters with Japanese characters on them. One was clearly geared towards females and clearly towards males. We looked at them as a class and did an analysis of them worthy of any class, undergraduate and graduate. I helped them arrive at this position where they were honestly great at analyzing and could make the transition from sports team to written document.
Then I got the rough drafts and all was not sunshine and roses. They were all over the place. No order or rhyme or clairvoyant sign. No structure, no rhythm, nothing tied together, not even with a nice little ribbon.
Given we had a few more class periods before the final drafts were due, I quickly rebounded and realized the mistake and brought all the outlines and questions that my last class turned into bland sequential documents in order to corral the mental wonderings. While I still have to receive the final drafts, the marked improvement I have seen while having conferences with students is uplifting and encouraging. They see what they did and should have done.
This is just more of an answer to, “How much should I focus on one aspect versus the other.” The assignment requires both aspects and each class will respond differently to different stimuli. Everyone probably has their own reflections on the Textual Analysis and methods and situations have failed miserably. Please share for fun if you have the time.
Friday, February 22, 2008
SWE and Me
Everything in here could be the result of a drastic mis-reading.
In 621, we just finished exploring the theory of SWE (Standard Written English) as being equivalent to a foreign language. Meaning, there is spoken English and Written English. The reason being it explains many of the errors which arise in the work of Basic Writers.
I do not profess to know the theory in full detail or to understand it in such a way where I can stand as staunch proponent or opponent of it, but given the limited knowledge and acquisition we have gone through thus far in concern to this theory, I feel its implementation may be problematic. As a method of composition, I see it having a vast amount of benefits which put the detractors to sleep rather quickly. Taken to its extreme, it removes written English from culture, thus creating a universal written form which could even cross the Atlantic, while allowing linguistic subcultures to exist without conflict. It standardizes the curriculum to where we acknowledge the existence of the cultural spoken language and the universal written language, removing the hierarchy and aristocratic notions who speaks proper English. It simply forms a sense of cohesion and answers many of the questions on how teach English.
Yes, there would be a period where all hell breaks loose, no one knows what to read or write, teachers chain smoke with their students, cats sleep with dogs, while all sorts of other confusions and hypocrisies frolic through the education system. But isn’t that expected of all major changes?
What I am more concerned about is artistic aspect of writing. If we approach this teaching of SWE as that of a different language, effectively removing it from vocalization and culture, don’t we run the risk of losing the flavor which come along with it? Someone who knows the theory better than me may want to chime in at this point. But developing this universal structure, I feel that we remove the individual from the writing. Voice is non-existent. Vivid detail will just become detail. Would SWE even be considered a living language at that point? Without the influence of cultural vocalization and trying to find the balance between the two, SWE will essentially remain a stagnant form. A student in class brought up the scenario of the Middle East where they all read and write the same language but speak a different one depending on their culture. It is in some way the full realization of this view of SWE being a separate language.
When I started writing this, I was primarily concerned with how this view potentially removes the personal element to writing, but now I see it as a little more destructive. It basically changes the conception of what English is in order to meet the needs of the students. Agree or Disagree? Is this really what we want? It is not even a theory but just a given that we need to help our students in any way possible, but are we necessarily helping them by altering the language itself? I just can’t justify it. I feel that is what I don’t like about this view in the end. Although I hate the idea of changing the language, I am much more concerned about how this represents a P.C. view of teaching which ends up in being so concerned about the students self-awareness that we drastically alter the subject material for this concern and not the actual student.
In 621, we just finished exploring the theory of SWE (Standard Written English) as being equivalent to a foreign language. Meaning, there is spoken English and Written English. The reason being it explains many of the errors which arise in the work of Basic Writers.
I do not profess to know the theory in full detail or to understand it in such a way where I can stand as staunch proponent or opponent of it, but given the limited knowledge and acquisition we have gone through thus far in concern to this theory, I feel its implementation may be problematic. As a method of composition, I see it having a vast amount of benefits which put the detractors to sleep rather quickly. Taken to its extreme, it removes written English from culture, thus creating a universal written form which could even cross the Atlantic, while allowing linguistic subcultures to exist without conflict. It standardizes the curriculum to where we acknowledge the existence of the cultural spoken language and the universal written language, removing the hierarchy and aristocratic notions who speaks proper English. It simply forms a sense of cohesion and answers many of the questions on how teach English.
Yes, there would be a period where all hell breaks loose, no one knows what to read or write, teachers chain smoke with their students, cats sleep with dogs, while all sorts of other confusions and hypocrisies frolic through the education system. But isn’t that expected of all major changes?
What I am more concerned about is artistic aspect of writing. If we approach this teaching of SWE as that of a different language, effectively removing it from vocalization and culture, don’t we run the risk of losing the flavor which come along with it? Someone who knows the theory better than me may want to chime in at this point. But developing this universal structure, I feel that we remove the individual from the writing. Voice is non-existent. Vivid detail will just become detail. Would SWE even be considered a living language at that point? Without the influence of cultural vocalization and trying to find the balance between the two, SWE will essentially remain a stagnant form. A student in class brought up the scenario of the Middle East where they all read and write the same language but speak a different one depending on their culture. It is in some way the full realization of this view of SWE being a separate language.
When I started writing this, I was primarily concerned with how this view potentially removes the personal element to writing, but now I see it as a little more destructive. It basically changes the conception of what English is in order to meet the needs of the students. Agree or Disagree? Is this really what we want? It is not even a theory but just a given that we need to help our students in any way possible, but are we necessarily helping them by altering the language itself? I just can’t justify it. I feel that is what I don’t like about this view in the end. Although I hate the idea of changing the language, I am much more concerned about how this represents a P.C. view of teaching which ends up in being so concerned about the students self-awareness that we drastically alter the subject material for this concern and not the actual student.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
