Weeks 13 & 14
Monday 11/19: Today we discussed the Alexander piece. Unfortunately, I also hadn't had an opportunity to properly go over Project 4 with them, although they got the instructions a couple classes ago. I honestly had the hardest time finding when to squeeze this in--the schedule is so tight! I didn't do it during the Project 3 workshop because we had a full day that day, too. I guess next time I'll have to sacrifice that workshop so that the reading discussions don't suffer.
My concerns were all those brought up in 5890: looooong reading (though engaging), foreign topic, Monday class, Project 3 also due, Monday before break. I will say that this was one of my weakest discussions. Rather than get really into the trans theory stuff, I chose to focus on how we inscribe/ construct gender through language. I had them take the Kate Bornstein Gender Aptitude Test as homework. My reasons were twofold: I wanted to introduce them to the concept that gender was fluid--that their binary way of thinking about gender were just the tip of the gender theory iceberg. I also wanted to see if there were any students who were familiar with queering gender or thinking of it differently. The results proved to me that this was a foreign concept to EVERY student in my class: NONE of them scored lower than 50. But at least not all of them were in a perfect binary bubble.
http://www.umass.edu/stonewall/uploads/listWidget/8927/Kate%20quiz.pdf
So, as I suspected, I didn't get much conversation out of this activity. Next time, I want to spend more time on it, if only to explain why I even bothered having them do it. Hopefully they understood the connection from the brief explanation I gave them and didn't consider unnecessary busy work.
Then we started with a free write taken from Pat Califia from the reading. I think this led to a really interesting discussion. Right away, all four of my male students said "no", they wouldn't want to switch genders, even if they could switch back. Unfortunately, it was said that there are no "perks" to being a girl. I thought this was sad, but interesting. Some of my female students disagreed with this and did share some examples of how women are treated better (important for when my male students question feminism/sexism and what it has to do with them). For the record, not all of my female students said they would want to switch for a day, which baffled me. Well, I assumed that everyone was curious! This was a really great free write exercise with excellent results and I will be doing this next time.
The rest of the discussion was very abbreviated. I connected Alexander back to Flynn. Students felt that this article was too similar. I should explain that I didn't have them read the student narratives since I was going to do an in-class activity using those. Because of the Project 4 thing, however, we weren't able to do any activities. Looking over my lesson plan, we didn't get to a lot of questions that I wanted to. As a last minute decision, I decided to play the Harvard Sailing Team's "Girls Will Be Boys" and "Boys Will be Girls". This came out of my concern that students would be disengaged with this article and would respond better to once again talking about gender more generally. After watching both of these videos, which they really enjoyed, I tried my hardest to get a critical discussion going on, but to no avail. I asked them what stereotypes were presented in the video, what stereotypes were displayed on the body, etc. They really didn't want to get critical, making this whole thing pointless. They were VERY vocal about how "accurate" the videos were, which was the most disheartening thing I heard that class. No one would engage with me when I argued that not Everyone relate to this. They complained I was sucking the humor out of it. Tough titties, I want to talk about gender critically. Reasons for this: It was the last few minutes of class. Solution: only show one video so as not to eat up all the time, tell them beforehand to look for stereotypes/how gender plays out in the body, or, perhaps, cut it completely.
Monday 11/26: I was fretting over how to teach Cixous in the back of my mind the entire break. I think I had bad memories from reading it in my fem theory class and not understanding it at all. I was a junior, with an interest in the subject. These are freshmen, who are getting tired of this topic, no doubt. The first thing I did with this reading was give them a pdf version from my fem. theory book that was a bit shorter; it also happened to have passages underlined, which students said helped them pay attention better. They did dialectical notebooks for this one, and they picked out some pretty interesting stuff.
So, as I said, I didn't know how to approach this text, and there was added pressure of being observed today; I didn't want to completely blow it. I simply took the questions that I wanted to ask them (some of my own and some from the apparatus) and added a passage from the text for each group to do a close-reading of so that each group was really focusing on a particular theme in the reading (the Medusa metaphor, the masturbation metaphor, etc.). Some of the questions sort of overlapped per each group, which turned out to be a great connector (and it also drilled the points home). I was pretty happy with the way it turned out. I also played the cheesy Medusa video at the beginning because I was really uncomfortable talking about Greek Myth freely (and Freud, too, for that matter. Plus, I hate Freud). To my surprised, one student who rarely participates seemed to know a lot about Greek Myth. My students still surprise me!
Wednesday: Perhaps the weirdest class to teach, in that there were a number of things I wanted to focus on; there was no theme (or really structure). First, we went over Project 4 once again since the questions are flooding in. I made them a brand new "checklist" of sorts-- it's pretty much their instruction sheet reformatted (that instruction sheet is admittedly difficult to comprehend). They have a lot to do for this project! I felt that the instruction sheet was a bit scattered, so I broke it down into the 3 components the needed for the final: 1. reflective/analytical essay (then I talked about elements needed in that and strategies on approaching it) 2. Revised Project 1, 3, or both 4 3. Selected Portfolio (including the previous 2 items) and any additional stuff they think proves they haven't blown off the class. This brought up more questions. I really think they'll feel better after their drafts are turned in and they meet with me individually. Speaking of that, I showed them how to schedule conferences using schedule thing. Told them the stakes (2 classes cancelled, 2 minor violations if missed, mandatory, etc.) Some students still haven't signed up so they may need to be reminded once again that it isn't optional. Then we talked about revision. I introduced global and local. One student has already revised her Project 1 once, and I asked her to share some of the things she did (address counterargument, add more sources, work on her synthesis, develop her own argument). By this class, I had graded some Project 3s and was quite disappointed that they were severely lacking in synthesis and using the Gee and Wardle readings as a framework. Because some students didn't include some of the required elements of project 3, I required them to revise this one for the final portfolio (meaning they have to revise it twice, they can't double dip). An addendum: their P 3s got worlds better after I graded more; I must have just started with the worst. Anyway, for the rest of class, I asked them to look at the "What I'm Looking For" sections of Project 1 & 3 (we were in the computer lab) and decide what they think they need to revise based on those requirements. The fact that they needed a synthesis was most surprising to them (what!!!???!!!!!???!!!) and this brought us back to the synthesis required for the reflective essay. Sloppily, we did a rundown of the authors we've read and their main points, starting with Swales, Gee, and Wardle; we only had about 7 minutes to do this, so we obviously didn't get far, but it made me realize they needed more help on synthesis.
Friday: Last reading! Once again, I felt like we didn't get to spend too much time on this reading. I made a decision to bring in Katie Wrabel's in-class activity to help them with their reflective essays. But we got through as much Anzaldua as we could in 20 minutes. I was going to begin with a free-write suggested by Renee, but I had technical difficulties; the project was working, but there was a blue screen that wouldn't go away. I felt like it was my first day all over. What a nice book end, I guess. I asked them a variation of the question and we had a decent discussion. For the first time (I think) I asked them their thoughts on the piece (which is hopefully open enough to not just call for "opinions") and they said, for the first time also, that they thought Anzaldua was on drugs. I was kind of taken aback by this comment. And then I was curious; we've read creative, nonstandard pieces before, why was this lady the druggie? I used that point to discuss the Lunsford interview where she talks about being included in rhet. comp books and how it was surprising (back-handed compliment). Some of my students took issue with the way white people were villianized in this piece (I saw a lot of "white people are always the scapegoat nowadays"), so we talked about appropriation and ethnocentrism. I asked them if they thought it was true that Western culture doesn't appreciate writing. They agreed it was true--I told them not everybody is unappreciative (how can they be hard on their own culture yet defensive about it when people call them out for those behaviors?) I asked them if they change with every piece of writing. One student said no, but another student actually disagreed with him. I was so proud and happy! I did forget to bring up Anzaldua's use of language, but I was rushed for time.
For. the rest of the time they did Wrabel's group activity, which I thought was a great idea. I spent the most time with the unit 1 group because I think those readings will be the most useful in the reflective essay (though not the only ones they should include). I think students are intimidated by the word "theory" (this was one question on Wrabel's handout). I think they believe theories belong in the science classroom, and "how can I have my own theory?" It'll be hard to get them to consider their own attitudes and opinions toward (andy systems used in) writing are "theories". I also think that their syntheses will be rather poor for this first draft. They can DO it-- have done it all year-- but they don't want to read. They hate reading, apparently. I told pretty much every student they needed to re-read Gee and Wardle because they didn't exactly understand those readings, and I doubt any of them will. They certainly won't re-read Berkenkotter & Murray just to make sure they got the "reconceiving" thing right. Man, they're really lazy when it comes to reading.
Speaking of reading, this is the longest journal entry ever. Sorry!
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Teaching Journal XII
Week XII
Week 12 was a short week, but was filled with very interesting readings. I learned that while free writes might be routine now, they are a pretty valuable part of class. Even though my students might not have understood the articles (and might have skimmed, as I suspect), I was still able to get a good discussion on both days.
Wednesday: Instead of starting off with my usual free write exercise, I had my class take the Guardian UK quiz. Before we were able to do that, I had them give me some examples of traditionally feminine/masculine behavior. This went well, and they even included examples from the Flynn reading during this part. The quiz itself actually went better than I expected. I worried that it would take too long, but on some questions, students guessed right after the first sentence or two. We got 5 out of 10. The class agreed that the quiz didn't prove VS Naipul's point--that you can't tell the gender of the writer just by looking at the prose. I also pointed out Nicholas Sparks was one of the authors included and is an example of a male author composing what some might consider feminine writing.
The downside of the quiz was that starting out with something fun like that meant it was harder to get back into the nitty gritty of discussing the major and minor points of the article. Discussion went best when I asked general questions about feminism, essentialism, social constructionism, etc. I learned that my students didn't really have any preconceptions about feminism like I expected. In fact, they seemed to not know what feminism was. Wow. My one (female) student who has been an outspoken opponent of feminism was absent today, and it really was a shame. I asked if they still feel if women's perspectives are silenced or ignored. Most students shared that they understood there was a point in the past where this happened, but they didn't feel it happened anymore. I asked the females in my class (14 of 18) if they ever felt silenced and they said no. I raised the point that sometimes when women get angry, it's dismissed by saying she's on her period. This is where the gender divide really worked in my favor because all the girls had been told that before. I ended discussion by asking what space Flynn's article leaves for discussing how men are affected by this stereotyping/sexism, but they weren't biting. Today was a pretty good class and I was pleased by how open my students seemed.
Friday: Even though my class was really respectful on Wednesday, I was still worried about our discussion of Delpit and Smitherman. I began by writing Audre Lorde's quote on the board. I thought maybe this quote presented in context with the readings would be too obvious and easy; I first encountered this quote in a WGS class, without context, and it was quite puzzling. But they were still pretty quiet. We ended up just discussing it as a class instead of doing a free write. But I still think it's a good connection to make and will use it again. Our Delpit discussion went alright, with the one uncomfortable moment being when they refused to tell me how Delpit disagreed with Gee. I thought this was obviously the take away from the reading, but what pissed me off was that they wouldn't look in their books. So as they were staring at me blankly, I said "I'll wait" to give them the hint. They know by now nothing pisses me off more than just having their books sitting closed on their desks. From the first day onwards next semester, I'm emphasizing close reading and textual evidence so this doesn't happen ever again. This actually had to happen a few times on Friday, with them not recalling certain points of the reading. They were much more forthcoming with Smitherman, so I chalk it up to them maybe skimming Delpit.
Before getting into Smitherman, I showed them The Story of English: Black on White episode 6 so they could get a sense of code switching, BE, and why it's still a paramount discourse for them to retain. The video didn't really have the desired affect; some students were openly hostile toward BE--calling it "stupid" or saying they didn't understand why "they" had to talk like that in the first place. Another student responded that black people don't want to use the "master's" language because we've treated them terribly for so long, which I thought was a good point. We did a close reading of the ending before focusing on Smitherman's main point: to ignore superficial grammar features in favor of substance and ideas. I related it to what we do in 1510, and one student said she's really glad we do it that way. I definitely think this is the most relatable part of these two readings for these students. One student said he didn't know why we were doing these readings because he can't relate, so I tried to explain to him that it's important to have sensitivity toward multiple cultures. I tried to get him to admit how important language was for his own identity, so to extend that to people of color. The worst comment of the day came when one student jokingly said she wished there was a black person in our class "so we could ask them stuff." Ugh. Have any of these students ever even met a person of color? I honestly don't know. I tried to give a controlled and non preachy response to that saying imagine how uncomfortable that student would feel to be the token student of color. They all seemed to agree that that kind of thinking (let's just ask the black guy!) isn't a good approach.
Overall, I think both these classes involved some really good discussion. Students seemed to be talking more than ever. I definitely think the more general gender questions during Wednesday's class helped them open up a lot. I'm usually resistant to making it all about them because really, the whole point is that these readings AREN'T about them, but that's a defeating line of thinking.
Week 12 was a short week, but was filled with very interesting readings. I learned that while free writes might be routine now, they are a pretty valuable part of class. Even though my students might not have understood the articles (and might have skimmed, as I suspect), I was still able to get a good discussion on both days.
Wednesday: Instead of starting off with my usual free write exercise, I had my class take the Guardian UK quiz. Before we were able to do that, I had them give me some examples of traditionally feminine/masculine behavior. This went well, and they even included examples from the Flynn reading during this part. The quiz itself actually went better than I expected. I worried that it would take too long, but on some questions, students guessed right after the first sentence or two. We got 5 out of 10. The class agreed that the quiz didn't prove VS Naipul's point--that you can't tell the gender of the writer just by looking at the prose. I also pointed out Nicholas Sparks was one of the authors included and is an example of a male author composing what some might consider feminine writing.
The downside of the quiz was that starting out with something fun like that meant it was harder to get back into the nitty gritty of discussing the major and minor points of the article. Discussion went best when I asked general questions about feminism, essentialism, social constructionism, etc. I learned that my students didn't really have any preconceptions about feminism like I expected. In fact, they seemed to not know what feminism was. Wow. My one (female) student who has been an outspoken opponent of feminism was absent today, and it really was a shame. I asked if they still feel if women's perspectives are silenced or ignored. Most students shared that they understood there was a point in the past where this happened, but they didn't feel it happened anymore. I asked the females in my class (14 of 18) if they ever felt silenced and they said no. I raised the point that sometimes when women get angry, it's dismissed by saying she's on her period. This is where the gender divide really worked in my favor because all the girls had been told that before. I ended discussion by asking what space Flynn's article leaves for discussing how men are affected by this stereotyping/sexism, but they weren't biting. Today was a pretty good class and I was pleased by how open my students seemed.
Friday: Even though my class was really respectful on Wednesday, I was still worried about our discussion of Delpit and Smitherman. I began by writing Audre Lorde's quote on the board. I thought maybe this quote presented in context with the readings would be too obvious and easy; I first encountered this quote in a WGS class, without context, and it was quite puzzling. But they were still pretty quiet. We ended up just discussing it as a class instead of doing a free write. But I still think it's a good connection to make and will use it again. Our Delpit discussion went alright, with the one uncomfortable moment being when they refused to tell me how Delpit disagreed with Gee. I thought this was obviously the take away from the reading, but what pissed me off was that they wouldn't look in their books. So as they were staring at me blankly, I said "I'll wait" to give them the hint. They know by now nothing pisses me off more than just having their books sitting closed on their desks. From the first day onwards next semester, I'm emphasizing close reading and textual evidence so this doesn't happen ever again. This actually had to happen a few times on Friday, with them not recalling certain points of the reading. They were much more forthcoming with Smitherman, so I chalk it up to them maybe skimming Delpit.
Before getting into Smitherman, I showed them The Story of English: Black on White episode 6 so they could get a sense of code switching, BE, and why it's still a paramount discourse for them to retain. The video didn't really have the desired affect; some students were openly hostile toward BE--calling it "stupid" or saying they didn't understand why "they" had to talk like that in the first place. Another student responded that black people don't want to use the "master's" language because we've treated them terribly for so long, which I thought was a good point. We did a close reading of the ending before focusing on Smitherman's main point: to ignore superficial grammar features in favor of substance and ideas. I related it to what we do in 1510, and one student said she's really glad we do it that way. I definitely think this is the most relatable part of these two readings for these students. One student said he didn't know why we were doing these readings because he can't relate, so I tried to explain to him that it's important to have sensitivity toward multiple cultures. I tried to get him to admit how important language was for his own identity, so to extend that to people of color. The worst comment of the day came when one student jokingly said she wished there was a black person in our class "so we could ask them stuff." Ugh. Have any of these students ever even met a person of color? I honestly don't know. I tried to give a controlled and non preachy response to that saying imagine how uncomfortable that student would feel to be the token student of color. They all seemed to agree that that kind of thinking (let's just ask the black guy!) isn't a good approach.
Overall, I think both these classes involved some really good discussion. Students seemed to be talking more than ever. I definitely think the more general gender questions during Wednesday's class helped them open up a lot. I'm usually resistant to making it all about them because really, the whole point is that these readings AREN'T about them, but that's a defeating line of thinking.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Teaching Journal XI
Week 11
Monday: Today we read Heilker and Yergeau. Since there was no apparatus, I made them a reading guide. I was hoping this would make them feel more prepared to speak more. I sort of began class with a disclaimer because I was a bit apprehensive about teaching this. It really helped that Sarah said this was about rhetoric and didn't need an autistic subject--it just happens to have one. I began with a free-wrire: What were your impressions of or (mis)understandings about autism prior to reading this article. How aware of autism were you? Where had you heard or seen a discussion about it before?
Surprisingly or not so surprisingly no one said they were familiar with autism, except for seeing the puzzle piece stickers (?) at Borders or Starbucks. One student mentioned that his roommate told him he had Asperger's, but unfortunately this quickly turned into students asking him what his roommate "did." I wanted to quickly move into the discussion of autism as a social construct, so I showed part of the video of Temple Grandin talking about Einstein and Van Gogh. I explained why it was problematic to diagnose people posthumously with a condition that didn't exist while they lived. I'm not sure they bought my explanation of it being a social construction, though. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure they know what a social construction is (If you'll read my previous blogs, we didn't get to Malinowitz). I had planned a group activity where half of them looked at What Paul Says and the other at What Melanie Says and describe characteristic 'autistic' behavior and explain how approaching that behavior rhetorically changes the meaning of that behavior. Then they were to get with someone who did the opposite person and talk about it. I'm not sure how well this would have worked, but I had to cut it short due to time. I might eliminate group work next time I teach this. I think the puzzle piece criticism by Yergeau resonated the most with them because they were familiar with that campaign. They tend to accept everything they're told (in class) without questioning it or challenging it, so having someone critique that campaign was interesting for them. This was a pretty good class. The students were respectful and I enjoyed reading their responses to the free-write. Even though they weren't familiar, they were still thoughtful (I don't know why some students don't like to share their responses!). They followed me on my discussion of discourse and rhetoric (the reading guide helped with these answers). Next time, I'd like to talk more about empathy and how it can be problematic.
Wednesday: Today's discussion of Villanueva was rather disappointing. Students did not really understand Villanueva's argument. This was the first reading response in which students asked questions in their responses. I tried to address these at the beginning, but I'm not sure they ever followed. I was also very surprised to learn that they had never heard the phrase "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." Most of them didn't know what the assimilation myth was (even after looking it up), although one student at least admitted that he didn't really understand why it was a myth. Here's where I think I made my first mistake: I began with the Dozen Demons and white privilege. I think in order to understand these multicultural pieces (especially this and Delpit/Smitherman)--in order to understand why identity matters so much-- students have to recognize that their experience is probably different from what these authors are writing about. And they have to understand that this difference is largely due to racism and hegemony. As an undergrad, I read Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and it was incredibly eyeopening. I showed a video of McIntosh briefly describing why she wrote the piece and then listing the privileges (we didn't watch the whole thing). I was of course expecting resistance to this, but not the type I got. First, I noticed some students (especially one who would comment on this) weren't really watching the screen, and were therefore missing the privileges. I think they also missed McIntosh's point that the black experience is largely ignored in the canon of literature and in the curriculum, which I thought was a good connection to Villanueva. I also think important to these readings is understanding how our schools continually fail our students of color.
Anyway, after I stopped the video, one girl answered that she didn't see why things were unfair because "they get to go to school for free." I honestly thought this was pretty much a non sequitur, and wasn't sure how to respond. I assumed she was talking about affirmative action, which she didn't know by that name. I tried to explain why it would be fair for students of colors (and women!) to get a leg up (the dozen demons, the white privilege, the racism) but I wasn't prepared to give a lesson on why affirmative action exists. Maybe I should have been? Since this didn't work out, I probably shouldn't show it next time, but I still feel like its an important concept to grasp. Thoughts? I think that if students can't grasp the idea that people of color are at an unfair disadvantage and that many people of color have some sort of identity crisis because they exist in between two or more cultures, these readings will not resonate. The rest of Wednesday's class was spent discussing Villanueva's argument and the connection between memoria and personal, emotional writing rather than logocentric writing. We did a close reading of and unpacked two of the passages, which students did a pretty good job with.
Friday: Today was a workshop day. Usually I make their drafts due at 3 pm (after our class meets), but I'd been feeling like students weren't getting a whole lot out of in-class workshops. So instead of that, I had their drafts due by classtime today and they were to bring in a copy of their peer's paper. Some students brought in their own papers and swapped, which I was trying to avoid in case one student was absent. One girl never turned in her paper, so I had to have a student's paper be peer reviewed twice (which they were hesitant to volunteer for!). Before we did that, we did briefly workshop the Athens music scene sample. I have the students read the paragraphs out loud and then we discuss what we think works or doesn't work, and then I reveal my own comments. We focused on organization, the introduction (how personal and in-depth should you go?), Swales and the student's niche (and synthesizing the readings), how to incorporate interview questions/answers, and how to analyze answers. For the remainder of the class period, I gave them time to start their peer reviews. I projected a few guidelines/questions (mostly taken from the Project 3 instructions). I had planned on giving each student his/her class standing (number of violations) during this time, but because some students had questions, I didn't have a lot of time to get through them.
Monday: Today we read Heilker and Yergeau. Since there was no apparatus, I made them a reading guide. I was hoping this would make them feel more prepared to speak more. I sort of began class with a disclaimer because I was a bit apprehensive about teaching this. It really helped that Sarah said this was about rhetoric and didn't need an autistic subject--it just happens to have one. I began with a free-wrire: What were your impressions of or (mis)understandings about autism prior to reading this article. How aware of autism were you? Where had you heard or seen a discussion about it before?
Surprisingly or not so surprisingly no one said they were familiar with autism, except for seeing the puzzle piece stickers (?) at Borders or Starbucks. One student mentioned that his roommate told him he had Asperger's, but unfortunately this quickly turned into students asking him what his roommate "did." I wanted to quickly move into the discussion of autism as a social construct, so I showed part of the video of Temple Grandin talking about Einstein and Van Gogh. I explained why it was problematic to diagnose people posthumously with a condition that didn't exist while they lived. I'm not sure they bought my explanation of it being a social construction, though. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure they know what a social construction is (If you'll read my previous blogs, we didn't get to Malinowitz). I had planned a group activity where half of them looked at What Paul Says and the other at What Melanie Says and describe characteristic 'autistic' behavior and explain how approaching that behavior rhetorically changes the meaning of that behavior. Then they were to get with someone who did the opposite person and talk about it. I'm not sure how well this would have worked, but I had to cut it short due to time. I might eliminate group work next time I teach this. I think the puzzle piece criticism by Yergeau resonated the most with them because they were familiar with that campaign. They tend to accept everything they're told (in class) without questioning it or challenging it, so having someone critique that campaign was interesting for them. This was a pretty good class. The students were respectful and I enjoyed reading their responses to the free-write. Even though they weren't familiar, they were still thoughtful (I don't know why some students don't like to share their responses!). They followed me on my discussion of discourse and rhetoric (the reading guide helped with these answers). Next time, I'd like to talk more about empathy and how it can be problematic.
Wednesday: Today's discussion of Villanueva was rather disappointing. Students did not really understand Villanueva's argument. This was the first reading response in which students asked questions in their responses. I tried to address these at the beginning, but I'm not sure they ever followed. I was also very surprised to learn that they had never heard the phrase "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." Most of them didn't know what the assimilation myth was (even after looking it up), although one student at least admitted that he didn't really understand why it was a myth. Here's where I think I made my first mistake: I began with the Dozen Demons and white privilege. I think in order to understand these multicultural pieces (especially this and Delpit/Smitherman)--in order to understand why identity matters so much-- students have to recognize that their experience is probably different from what these authors are writing about. And they have to understand that this difference is largely due to racism and hegemony. As an undergrad, I read Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and it was incredibly eyeopening. I showed a video of McIntosh briefly describing why she wrote the piece and then listing the privileges (we didn't watch the whole thing). I was of course expecting resistance to this, but not the type I got. First, I noticed some students (especially one who would comment on this) weren't really watching the screen, and were therefore missing the privileges. I think they also missed McIntosh's point that the black experience is largely ignored in the canon of literature and in the curriculum, which I thought was a good connection to Villanueva. I also think important to these readings is understanding how our schools continually fail our students of color.
Anyway, after I stopped the video, one girl answered that she didn't see why things were unfair because "they get to go to school for free." I honestly thought this was pretty much a non sequitur, and wasn't sure how to respond. I assumed she was talking about affirmative action, which she didn't know by that name. I tried to explain why it would be fair for students of colors (and women!) to get a leg up (the dozen demons, the white privilege, the racism) but I wasn't prepared to give a lesson on why affirmative action exists. Maybe I should have been? Since this didn't work out, I probably shouldn't show it next time, but I still feel like its an important concept to grasp. Thoughts? I think that if students can't grasp the idea that people of color are at an unfair disadvantage and that many people of color have some sort of identity crisis because they exist in between two or more cultures, these readings will not resonate. The rest of Wednesday's class was spent discussing Villanueva's argument and the connection between memoria and personal, emotional writing rather than logocentric writing. We did a close reading of and unpacked two of the passages, which students did a pretty good job with.
Friday: Today was a workshop day. Usually I make their drafts due at 3 pm (after our class meets), but I'd been feeling like students weren't getting a whole lot out of in-class workshops. So instead of that, I had their drafts due by classtime today and they were to bring in a copy of their peer's paper. Some students brought in their own papers and swapped, which I was trying to avoid in case one student was absent. One girl never turned in her paper, so I had to have a student's paper be peer reviewed twice (which they were hesitant to volunteer for!). Before we did that, we did briefly workshop the Athens music scene sample. I have the students read the paragraphs out loud and then we discuss what we think works or doesn't work, and then I reveal my own comments. We focused on organization, the introduction (how personal and in-depth should you go?), Swales and the student's niche (and synthesizing the readings), how to incorporate interview questions/answers, and how to analyze answers. For the remainder of the class period, I gave them time to start their peer reviews. I projected a few guidelines/questions (mostly taken from the Project 3 instructions). I had planned on giving each student his/her class standing (number of violations) during this time, but because some students had questions, I didn't have a lot of time to get through them.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Teaching Journal X
Week 10
This week my goal was to retrieve my authority over my students. I think this would have went okay had the Wednesday Nightmare not happened, which I'll explain below.
Monday: Today we discussed Devitt et al. We began with a freewriting exercise in which they were to describe without looking in the book what genre is according to the layman. They were to also give examples from the Devitt et. al. piece to explain their definitions. This was, admittedly, a different and more difficult freewrite than the ones we most often attempt (most having to do with their feelings/previous experiences with a particular topic). However, I noticed that they were having trouble remembering even simple definitions (primary Discourse) and genre was an important part of this piece. It didn't go all that well. I had them get with a partner to share their answer. I then asked them to list all the examples of genres in this reading and in our own class. I really meant it when I said all because I wouldn't move on until I was satisfied. They were pretty unwilling during this part. I told them to get out their books and just read them (cheat!). At this point I was annoyed that a.) they didn't already have their books out. Most of the questions I ask that result in blank stares could easily be answered if they weren't so lazy and just looked at the article itself and b.) it appeared they didn't read the article at all. We finally moved on after I made the point to remind them to bring their texts to class on Wednesday because I'd be checking. It's unacceptable to me that they don't look at their texts while we're discussing a piece. The rest of the discussion was pretty lackluster. They didn't care to discuss the sample election ballot I pulled up because they all figured it was pretty easy to understand, despite Devitt's argument. We went over the jury instructions, which was probably the most successful part, as they seemed to grasp the issue of authority (specialized vs. nonspecialized) with that example. By the time we got to Reiff's section, the conversation was pretty much dead, and I noticed a couple students with their phones blatantly out on their desk. The Great Cellphone Shift happened during work on project 2, where students felt relaxed in the computer lab to do whatever they wanted (with the excuse that they were looking up pictures on their phones!). At the end, I reminded the class as a whole about our cell policy and that if I see them texting, they'll receive a minor violation. A couple students were visibly (and snottily) annoyed that I had said anything. The last part of class involved us coming up with questions to ask our interviewees in our "mini ethnographies". It seemed like the class was unclear what to ask, so it basically turned into me suggesting questions that would get at some tension within their community.
By Tuesday evening, I had commented on all of their topic proposals and approved most of them. Some people's first choices weren't going to work, but luckily, these students had come up with backup plans, which I ended up approving. Overall, I'm much more happy and intrigued by these topics than project 1. I do have about 3 sororities/fraternities, but it's better than 8 papers on procrastination.
Around 2 am, I finished up my own work and went to gander at their Malinowitz IWAs. The first one I read was about "Isabel Serrano." My first instinct was: this student read the wrong piece. But the next five I read were also on the wrong article. I was so mad at my students' inability to follow directions! I sent out an email saying that they read the wrong article even though I had sent out an earlier email Monday saying its "Queer Texts, Queer Contexts,"(I even made some kind of comment in the email like "Bet you can tell what the article's about just based on the title") and that the reading apparatus also had the correct title, so there was no excuse for doing the wrong reading. I received an email from a student saying that I had written the wrong page number on the board in Monday's class and that's why they were confused. For the next hour I battled a flood of emotions: anger at my students, anger at myself, sadness, etc. First I was going to cancel class and give the students who had read the wrong reading minor violations (about 6 of my 18 students did the correct reading). Then I was going to teach Isabel Serrano; then I was just going to do a synthesis day. Ultimately, because I had made a mistake, I ended up canceling class and giving those who had read the correct reading extra credit (removes 1 minor violation). I don't know if this was the correct decision. Probably not, but I didn't want to have a class discussion if people weren't on the same page. I couldn't expect my students to read the long-ass Malinowitz article and read it well by 10:45 AM. I couldn't expect the students who had read the correct reading to also do "Isabel Serrano." I still can't think about what I've dubbed the Wednesday Nightmare without getting upset. It was the first time I've broken down all term. I hated canceling a class and I still feel like they didn't deserve my leniency. They encountered the correct title 3 different places (Note: I had also assigned extra credit for this reading, which I did as an incentive to get them to read Malinowitz closely and thoroughly). They have the reading schedule, they've never been shy about emailing me questions, and I always send out clarifying emails like the one on Monday in case I make stupid mistakes like writing the wrong page numbers, which I'm prone to doing. I had thought about saying "hey there's two articles, this is the one you need to read," but I thought I'd accomplished that by giving the article title. Obviously I will next time. This just tells me that, wrong page numbers or not, they don't read my emails, they don't read the apparati: they don't read anything they don't have to!
Friday: Today they had their introductions and conversations/syntheses due today. I sent out an email Wednesday saying they needed to post it to the discussion board. I also put up a sample introduction to show that it doesn't have to be perfect; that they could and should work through what their aim is in this intro. These were due by class time, but by Thursday evening, when I went to read some of them, only 6 students had posted them. Usually my students post their papers early Thursday afternoon (probably due do Thursday night shenanigans). I headed over to the class blog because I had written a post where I asked students who wanted their paper workshopped to respond. No one had requested their paper be workshopped, but many students had posted their intros to the class blog instead. Once again, coming off Wednesday's fiasco, I was pretty upset at the failure to follow directions (directions that were crystal clear this time). I was going to make a point in class on Friday to say This is what the email said to do, and this is what you didn't do: minor violations. Instead, on Friday around 9:30 I sent another email saying "Please post your intros in the correct location as per the email I sent out. Following directions is important." Some of them listened and corrected the mistake. Some didn't. I'm still giving those who didn't minor violations.
In class I split them up into 5 groups (I came in early to rearrange the desks because I think the physical change is really beneficial) and handed each group a different intro. They each read through a copy of an intro then, as a group, composed a cover letter to their peer. Then we looked at the Primary Research Document. I also asked them to brainstorm some questions their peer should either ask their interviewer or themselves as he/she moves forward. They weren't really asking questions that would get at the tension/conflict within the discourse community (i.e. "How long have you been working here" instead of "how long did it take for you to feel comfortable here? To feel like part of the group.") So we spent some time going through some questions about authority and identity that they might ask. I think this helped clarify what they're supposed to do: find some argument and some sort of tension either within the dc or with what the authors are saying.
Overall this was a shitty week. I have no idea where my authority stands. On the one hand, I'm cracking down on following directions/class policies. On the other, I made an error in assigning homework. Because I was so bummed out about the Malinowitz, a discussion I was really excited for, I had thought about re-assigning it over the weekend in place of Heilker & Yergeau, which I didn't remember loving from orientation. Apart from everything else, the Malinowitz article gets at what I think is an important college lesson: giving a shit about people who're different than you. Ultimately, I'm sticking to the schedule and I really just want to move on from this week.
This week my goal was to retrieve my authority over my students. I think this would have went okay had the Wednesday Nightmare not happened, which I'll explain below.
Monday: Today we discussed Devitt et al. We began with a freewriting exercise in which they were to describe without looking in the book what genre is according to the layman. They were to also give examples from the Devitt et. al. piece to explain their definitions. This was, admittedly, a different and more difficult freewrite than the ones we most often attempt (most having to do with their feelings/previous experiences with a particular topic). However, I noticed that they were having trouble remembering even simple definitions (primary Discourse) and genre was an important part of this piece. It didn't go all that well. I had them get with a partner to share their answer. I then asked them to list all the examples of genres in this reading and in our own class. I really meant it when I said all because I wouldn't move on until I was satisfied. They were pretty unwilling during this part. I told them to get out their books and just read them (cheat!). At this point I was annoyed that a.) they didn't already have their books out. Most of the questions I ask that result in blank stares could easily be answered if they weren't so lazy and just looked at the article itself and b.) it appeared they didn't read the article at all. We finally moved on after I made the point to remind them to bring their texts to class on Wednesday because I'd be checking. It's unacceptable to me that they don't look at their texts while we're discussing a piece. The rest of the discussion was pretty lackluster. They didn't care to discuss the sample election ballot I pulled up because they all figured it was pretty easy to understand, despite Devitt's argument. We went over the jury instructions, which was probably the most successful part, as they seemed to grasp the issue of authority (specialized vs. nonspecialized) with that example. By the time we got to Reiff's section, the conversation was pretty much dead, and I noticed a couple students with their phones blatantly out on their desk. The Great Cellphone Shift happened during work on project 2, where students felt relaxed in the computer lab to do whatever they wanted (with the excuse that they were looking up pictures on their phones!). At the end, I reminded the class as a whole about our cell policy and that if I see them texting, they'll receive a minor violation. A couple students were visibly (and snottily) annoyed that I had said anything. The last part of class involved us coming up with questions to ask our interviewees in our "mini ethnographies". It seemed like the class was unclear what to ask, so it basically turned into me suggesting questions that would get at some tension within their community.
By Tuesday evening, I had commented on all of their topic proposals and approved most of them. Some people's first choices weren't going to work, but luckily, these students had come up with backup plans, which I ended up approving. Overall, I'm much more happy and intrigued by these topics than project 1. I do have about 3 sororities/fraternities, but it's better than 8 papers on procrastination.
Around 2 am, I finished up my own work and went to gander at their Malinowitz IWAs. The first one I read was about "Isabel Serrano." My first instinct was: this student read the wrong piece. But the next five I read were also on the wrong article. I was so mad at my students' inability to follow directions! I sent out an email saying that they read the wrong article even though I had sent out an earlier email Monday saying its "Queer Texts, Queer Contexts,"(I even made some kind of comment in the email like "Bet you can tell what the article's about just based on the title") and that the reading apparatus also had the correct title, so there was no excuse for doing the wrong reading. I received an email from a student saying that I had written the wrong page number on the board in Monday's class and that's why they were confused. For the next hour I battled a flood of emotions: anger at my students, anger at myself, sadness, etc. First I was going to cancel class and give the students who had read the wrong reading minor violations (about 6 of my 18 students did the correct reading). Then I was going to teach Isabel Serrano; then I was just going to do a synthesis day. Ultimately, because I had made a mistake, I ended up canceling class and giving those who had read the correct reading extra credit (removes 1 minor violation). I don't know if this was the correct decision. Probably not, but I didn't want to have a class discussion if people weren't on the same page. I couldn't expect my students to read the long-ass Malinowitz article and read it well by 10:45 AM. I couldn't expect the students who had read the correct reading to also do "Isabel Serrano." I still can't think about what I've dubbed the Wednesday Nightmare without getting upset. It was the first time I've broken down all term. I hated canceling a class and I still feel like they didn't deserve my leniency. They encountered the correct title 3 different places (Note: I had also assigned extra credit for this reading, which I did as an incentive to get them to read Malinowitz closely and thoroughly). They have the reading schedule, they've never been shy about emailing me questions, and I always send out clarifying emails like the one on Monday in case I make stupid mistakes like writing the wrong page numbers, which I'm prone to doing. I had thought about saying "hey there's two articles, this is the one you need to read," but I thought I'd accomplished that by giving the article title. Obviously I will next time. This just tells me that, wrong page numbers or not, they don't read my emails, they don't read the apparati: they don't read anything they don't have to!
Friday: Today they had their introductions and conversations/syntheses due today. I sent out an email Wednesday saying they needed to post it to the discussion board. I also put up a sample introduction to show that it doesn't have to be perfect; that they could and should work through what their aim is in this intro. These were due by class time, but by Thursday evening, when I went to read some of them, only 6 students had posted them. Usually my students post their papers early Thursday afternoon (probably due do Thursday night shenanigans). I headed over to the class blog because I had written a post where I asked students who wanted their paper workshopped to respond. No one had requested their paper be workshopped, but many students had posted their intros to the class blog instead. Once again, coming off Wednesday's fiasco, I was pretty upset at the failure to follow directions (directions that were crystal clear this time). I was going to make a point in class on Friday to say This is what the email said to do, and this is what you didn't do: minor violations. Instead, on Friday around 9:30 I sent another email saying "Please post your intros in the correct location as per the email I sent out. Following directions is important." Some of them listened and corrected the mistake. Some didn't. I'm still giving those who didn't minor violations.
In class I split them up into 5 groups (I came in early to rearrange the desks because I think the physical change is really beneficial) and handed each group a different intro. They each read through a copy of an intro then, as a group, composed a cover letter to their peer. Then we looked at the Primary Research Document. I also asked them to brainstorm some questions their peer should either ask their interviewer or themselves as he/she moves forward. They weren't really asking questions that would get at the tension/conflict within the discourse community (i.e. "How long have you been working here" instead of "how long did it take for you to feel comfortable here? To feel like part of the group.") So we spent some time going through some questions about authority and identity that they might ask. I think this helped clarify what they're supposed to do: find some argument and some sort of tension either within the dc or with what the authors are saying.
Overall this was a shitty week. I have no idea where my authority stands. On the one hand, I'm cracking down on following directions/class policies. On the other, I made an error in assigning homework. Because I was so bummed out about the Malinowitz, a discussion I was really excited for, I had thought about re-assigning it over the weekend in place of Heilker & Yergeau, which I didn't remember loving from orientation. Apart from everything else, the Malinowitz article gets at what I think is an important college lesson: giving a shit about people who're different than you. Ultimately, I'm sticking to the schedule and I really just want to move on from this week.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Teaching Journal IX
Week 9
If we were still on quarters, we would be finishing up next week. Long live the superior quarter system!!
ahem...
This week my goals were to improve my class discussions because I had been feeling down about my discussion leading abilities. I believe I achieved my goal, but that the old nuisance of authority is once again rearing it's ugly head. That is, my attempt to get them to talk more involves me getting more informal with them. I figure it's better to have them talk (even if it's off topic, because I can steer them in the right direction) than have the dead fish look and behavior. But then I think it undermines my authority. Should I get my own conversation shark that I've heard so much about? This is my goal for week 10.
Monday: Today their peer reviews were due. It seemed like the handout really helped to ensure that each student but in a minimum standard of effort, but of course there are always exceptions. I told them that their project 2s were due on Friday (which I eventually extended to Monday 10/29). I introduced Project 3 as well. As usual, they were pretty silent with questions, but I think it is always a little overwhelming for them. I thought it maybe helped that they read Swales first before I introduced Project 3 formally, since Swales is really a framework for the project. We began with a free write and then defined terms. I started every class this week with a free write and terms. I think it works okay, but I always worry about things becoming repetitive (which is also why I had stopped doing group work every class period for a bit). I also had them do Carrie Ann's activity of simplifying the 6 criteria. This didn't work out like I hoped because some of the criteria are straightforward while others like genre are more complex. Overall, I'm not sure how I like the Swales piece. I first was emphasizing how important it was for Project 3, but then it became clear as we read more in this unit that they didn't have to follow his criteria to a T. I'm with my students that all the different views on discourse communities is confusing, and I'm not sure how useful it is for them to get them all; it might be better to just focus on a few.
We then talked about discourse communities. I started as I like to do with some pop culture: tv shows (office space from Ch. 4 Intro, The Office, Community, The League)- workplace, study groups, fantasy football leagues. Also fans of tv shows can form a discourse community. Fans of sports teams, fans of a musical group (warped tour/Phish), gaming. They got these but when I asked for some, they were unwilling to look outside their own lives for examples. I think my group lacks imagination. I'm also having trouble getting them to go outside of their own lives for a Project 3 DC. I keep telling them how rich the Athens community is, but I think it falls on deaf ears. Then we talked about Glenn briefly, focusing on the two different DCs (factory farm industry and PETA/animal rights groups) and how language is used in both (Doublespeak).
Wednesday: Gee discussion. We began with a free write asking them to identify some DCs or Discourses they are a part of or that play a part in their lives. I used these responses as guidance for their project 3 (I collected them and commented on them). Some of them were interesting (one student belongs to some fashion club here at OU), others were repetitive (sororities), or boring (sports team). Again I try to steer them to investigate one by going through The Post together and seeing how many Discourse Communities we can identify. The next activity we did was the most successful of the week (maybe the class): I had students come up and write what they think are the key terms of the Gee piece on the blackboard. The usual suspects were up and willing and the rest had to be called on. I think the physical act of getting up did wonders. I can't explain why it worked so well, but it got them moving, battled "The Fog" that surrounds them. They didn't do the best defining these terms, but there were a lot of them, and they attempted to define them, which I think is also important. There were a lot of wrong answers this week, but I appreciated the attempt. I think the students are very comfortable with each other after Project 2, and so they aren't afraid to be wrong in front of each other. But of course I want them to answer correctly, so I give them some time to flip through the article to refresh their memories. Ultimately, we didn't get through the Gee discussion; they got stuck on "metaknowledge". Because we have to write our lesson plans now, I write extensive plans. I include probably too much stuff because my class goes pretty fast through things and sometimes things don't work out the way I plan. This was the first time we had to continue a discussion into the next class period.
Friday: The. Kids. Were. Rowdy. Today. It also didn't help that I brought in candy today (their Halloween is Saturday, not the 31st). As soon as I began to write their homework on the board, I was greeted with so many moans! I told them that I'm SURE their other classes assigned homework and that I had EXTENDED the due date to Monday, so if they didn't want to work on it over the weekend, they should have turned it in on Friday. One group did turn it in "early" today. I guess now is the time they start negotiating the readings? Too bad. We only meet 3 times a week, not everyday like my freshman comp. class. They also asked why I never cancel class, which was met with a .................... reaction from me. I also don't have any sympathy for that because I am never absent from my classes; I value every class period.
The free write I had them do asked them to think about their personal identities or Discourses, showing Gee's example ("being an American or Russian, a man or a woman..."). Then they were to identify them as primary or secondary and dominant or non dominant. This was also my chance to explain that Gee doesn't categorize Primary Discourses as dominant/nondominant but that he does believe that some pDiscourses yield power. Then we transitioned into discussing how Alan's Discourses affected his enculturation. I thought Alan was the easiest approach to the Wardle piece. The offering of candy helped with some of the participation, but it was still the usual suspects. Then in 3 groups they each took on engagement, imagination, or alignment and discuss what Alan did wrong and what he should have done. They all though Alan should have tried to negotiate rather than retain his identity. I didn't get to show the My Fair Lady clips, which I really wanted; I'm not sure it was essential, anyway. The last 10 minutes I brought in a hat with some terms from this unit (primary Discourse, Discourse, enculturation, etc.) and they had to identify both the author and define the term or give examples. They would get candy for answering. When I was choosing terms, I thought that it would be too easy, but they actually didn't do well at all with this (even stuff we had just talked about!) I'm not sure how to deal with their apparent inability to retain information. I get that some of this stuff might overlap and be confusing, but they can't even remember what non dominant Discourses are or that they come from the Gee reading? They do synthesis for every reading response!
Next week will apparently entail combating complaints against "boring" readings that are "too long." According to their reading responses, they already thought the Devitt et al. reading was too long, so they'll hate the Malinowitz reading. I also found the Devitt reading very helpful in terms of clarifying some things for Project 3, but they disagree that it was useful or interesting.
If we were still on quarters, we would be finishing up next week. Long live the superior quarter system!!
ahem...
This week my goals were to improve my class discussions because I had been feeling down about my discussion leading abilities. I believe I achieved my goal, but that the old nuisance of authority is once again rearing it's ugly head. That is, my attempt to get them to talk more involves me getting more informal with them. I figure it's better to have them talk (even if it's off topic, because I can steer them in the right direction) than have the dead fish look and behavior. But then I think it undermines my authority. Should I get my own conversation shark that I've heard so much about? This is my goal for week 10.
Monday: Today their peer reviews were due. It seemed like the handout really helped to ensure that each student but in a minimum standard of effort, but of course there are always exceptions. I told them that their project 2s were due on Friday (which I eventually extended to Monday 10/29). I introduced Project 3 as well. As usual, they were pretty silent with questions, but I think it is always a little overwhelming for them. I thought it maybe helped that they read Swales first before I introduced Project 3 formally, since Swales is really a framework for the project. We began with a free write and then defined terms. I started every class this week with a free write and terms. I think it works okay, but I always worry about things becoming repetitive (which is also why I had stopped doing group work every class period for a bit). I also had them do Carrie Ann's activity of simplifying the 6 criteria. This didn't work out like I hoped because some of the criteria are straightforward while others like genre are more complex. Overall, I'm not sure how I like the Swales piece. I first was emphasizing how important it was for Project 3, but then it became clear as we read more in this unit that they didn't have to follow his criteria to a T. I'm with my students that all the different views on discourse communities is confusing, and I'm not sure how useful it is for them to get them all; it might be better to just focus on a few.
We then talked about discourse communities. I started as I like to do with some pop culture: tv shows (office space from Ch. 4 Intro, The Office, Community, The League)- workplace, study groups, fantasy football leagues. Also fans of tv shows can form a discourse community. Fans of sports teams, fans of a musical group (warped tour/Phish), gaming. They got these but when I asked for some, they were unwilling to look outside their own lives for examples. I think my group lacks imagination. I'm also having trouble getting them to go outside of their own lives for a Project 3 DC. I keep telling them how rich the Athens community is, but I think it falls on deaf ears. Then we talked about Glenn briefly, focusing on the two different DCs (factory farm industry and PETA/animal rights groups) and how language is used in both (Doublespeak).
Wednesday: Gee discussion. We began with a free write asking them to identify some DCs or Discourses they are a part of or that play a part in their lives. I used these responses as guidance for their project 3 (I collected them and commented on them). Some of them were interesting (one student belongs to some fashion club here at OU), others were repetitive (sororities), or boring (sports team). Again I try to steer them to investigate one by going through The Post together and seeing how many Discourse Communities we can identify. The next activity we did was the most successful of the week (maybe the class): I had students come up and write what they think are the key terms of the Gee piece on the blackboard. The usual suspects were up and willing and the rest had to be called on. I think the physical act of getting up did wonders. I can't explain why it worked so well, but it got them moving, battled "The Fog" that surrounds them. They didn't do the best defining these terms, but there were a lot of them, and they attempted to define them, which I think is also important. There were a lot of wrong answers this week, but I appreciated the attempt. I think the students are very comfortable with each other after Project 2, and so they aren't afraid to be wrong in front of each other. But of course I want them to answer correctly, so I give them some time to flip through the article to refresh their memories. Ultimately, we didn't get through the Gee discussion; they got stuck on "metaknowledge". Because we have to write our lesson plans now, I write extensive plans. I include probably too much stuff because my class goes pretty fast through things and sometimes things don't work out the way I plan. This was the first time we had to continue a discussion into the next class period.
Friday: The. Kids. Were. Rowdy. Today. It also didn't help that I brought in candy today (their Halloween is Saturday, not the 31st). As soon as I began to write their homework on the board, I was greeted with so many moans! I told them that I'm SURE their other classes assigned homework and that I had EXTENDED the due date to Monday, so if they didn't want to work on it over the weekend, they should have turned it in on Friday. One group did turn it in "early" today. I guess now is the time they start negotiating the readings? Too bad. We only meet 3 times a week, not everyday like my freshman comp. class. They also asked why I never cancel class, which was met with a .................... reaction from me. I also don't have any sympathy for that because I am never absent from my classes; I value every class period.
The free write I had them do asked them to think about their personal identities or Discourses, showing Gee's example ("being an American or Russian, a man or a woman..."). Then they were to identify them as primary or secondary and dominant or non dominant. This was also my chance to explain that Gee doesn't categorize Primary Discourses as dominant/nondominant but that he does believe that some pDiscourses yield power. Then we transitioned into discussing how Alan's Discourses affected his enculturation. I thought Alan was the easiest approach to the Wardle piece. The offering of candy helped with some of the participation, but it was still the usual suspects. Then in 3 groups they each took on engagement, imagination, or alignment and discuss what Alan did wrong and what he should have done. They all though Alan should have tried to negotiate rather than retain his identity. I didn't get to show the My Fair Lady clips, which I really wanted; I'm not sure it was essential, anyway. The last 10 minutes I brought in a hat with some terms from this unit (primary Discourse, Discourse, enculturation, etc.) and they had to identify both the author and define the term or give examples. They would get candy for answering. When I was choosing terms, I thought that it would be too easy, but they actually didn't do well at all with this (even stuff we had just talked about!) I'm not sure how to deal with their apparent inability to retain information. I get that some of this stuff might overlap and be confusing, but they can't even remember what non dominant Discourses are or that they come from the Gee reading? They do synthesis for every reading response!
Next week will apparently entail combating complaints against "boring" readings that are "too long." According to their reading responses, they already thought the Devitt et al. reading was too long, so they'll hate the Malinowitz reading. I also found the Devitt reading very helpful in terms of clarifying some things for Project 3, but they disagree that it was useful or interesting.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Teaching Journal VIII
Week 8
The goals for this week were to continue working on Project 2 and for the students to have a second stab at peer reviewing. Some students voiced disappointment with the first round of peer reviews, so another goal was to have the students take this step of the revision process seriously.
Monday and Wednesday both were computer lab days, and were essentially a continuation of Friday. All groups by Monday had arguments (or were very near having an argument) so these lab days focused on revising their storyboards and improving their visual designs. I didn't make them respond to the writing for the web handouts, but I asked that they read them. For their peer review, they were asked to provide significant feedback on the visual aspect, so they do need to be familiar with those readings.
On Wednesday I had planned to spend some time determining how well each group was collaborating, but I changed that part of the lesson plan. Again I went around to each group and addressed their concerns. By Wednesday, they were a bit more worried about getting everything done in time, so I'm glad I didn't try to push in anything else. Also, because POTUS was in town, it sort of indirectly affected some of the groups. For instance, one group had planned on doing Court Street Interviews after our class on Wednesday, but couldn't because one needed to get in line and the other wanted to avoid the chaos. I thought Wednesday was a useful day, soI I'm grateful I didn't have to cancel class like some other TAs.
Friday we were back in the classroom. I first had students do a free write that served as a reflection over project 2. It was here that I asked them how well they thought collaboration worked. Answers varied. I think next semester, I will emphasize that students need to be self-motivated if one of their group members isn't pulling their weight; they cannot just wait until the last minute and rely on me to fix the problem, they need to be proactive because it is a group "grade." Also for next time, I think I will stick to even smaller groups--as in mostly pairs and maybe 1 or two of three. I think this will solve some of the issues of meeting outside of class.
I also spent a big chunk of time on Friday explaining the peer review process. I made it more complicated than I had originally intended by assigning each group member within a single group to a different project. I also made them fill out a detailed questionnaire as well as compose a response letter to their peer. They have a lot of homework due for Monday, but I they need to take the peer review process seriously. After I explained the peer reviews, we workshopped Daniel, Jennifer, Carrie Ann, and Renee's project. I showed them an example of a cover letter for this project, as well as my own peer review of this website. This workshop went really well, definitely better than the workshop for Project 1, which was logistically difficult and unsuccessful. I didn't get to introduce Project 3 so will do so first thing Monday.
All in all, this was a good week; no class period went badly or less than I expected. Project 2 went so fast, I can't believe it's over. Project 3 also has a short time frame. I also always struggle with introducing a new project while one is still ongoing. I fear they will become overwhelmed, but I guess our schedule requires that overlap.
The goals for this week were to continue working on Project 2 and for the students to have a second stab at peer reviewing. Some students voiced disappointment with the first round of peer reviews, so another goal was to have the students take this step of the revision process seriously.
Monday and Wednesday both were computer lab days, and were essentially a continuation of Friday. All groups by Monday had arguments (or were very near having an argument) so these lab days focused on revising their storyboards and improving their visual designs. I didn't make them respond to the writing for the web handouts, but I asked that they read them. For their peer review, they were asked to provide significant feedback on the visual aspect, so they do need to be familiar with those readings.
On Wednesday I had planned to spend some time determining how well each group was collaborating, but I changed that part of the lesson plan. Again I went around to each group and addressed their concerns. By Wednesday, they were a bit more worried about getting everything done in time, so I'm glad I didn't try to push in anything else. Also, because POTUS was in town, it sort of indirectly affected some of the groups. For instance, one group had planned on doing Court Street Interviews after our class on Wednesday, but couldn't because one needed to get in line and the other wanted to avoid the chaos. I thought Wednesday was a useful day, soI I'm grateful I didn't have to cancel class like some other TAs.
Friday we were back in the classroom. I first had students do a free write that served as a reflection over project 2. It was here that I asked them how well they thought collaboration worked. Answers varied. I think next semester, I will emphasize that students need to be self-motivated if one of their group members isn't pulling their weight; they cannot just wait until the last minute and rely on me to fix the problem, they need to be proactive because it is a group "grade." Also for next time, I think I will stick to even smaller groups--as in mostly pairs and maybe 1 or two of three. I think this will solve some of the issues of meeting outside of class.
I also spent a big chunk of time on Friday explaining the peer review process. I made it more complicated than I had originally intended by assigning each group member within a single group to a different project. I also made them fill out a detailed questionnaire as well as compose a response letter to their peer. They have a lot of homework due for Monday, but I they need to take the peer review process seriously. After I explained the peer reviews, we workshopped Daniel, Jennifer, Carrie Ann, and Renee's project. I showed them an example of a cover letter for this project, as well as my own peer review of this website. This workshop went really well, definitely better than the workshop for Project 1, which was logistically difficult and unsuccessful. I didn't get to introduce Project 3 so will do so first thing Monday.
All in all, this was a good week; no class period went badly or less than I expected. Project 2 went so fast, I can't believe it's over. Project 3 also has a short time frame. I also always struggle with introducing a new project while one is still ongoing. I fear they will become overwhelmed, but I guess our schedule requires that overlap.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Teaching Journal VII
-->
Monday: This was a hard class. I had reservations way before
I even walked into class today. The Wysocki article is that lethal combination:
long and dense. I had warned them that even I struggled through this reading,
which in retrospect was not a helpful thing to say. I’ll keep that stuff to
myself next time. I always urge them, with these harder readings, to power through.
Even if they get lost, I tell them to think of each paragraph as a way to start
over and find some footing. For the other difficult readings we’ve done, I’ve
focused on the main ideas and overlooked some of the more difficult aspects of
the readings. I wanted to try something a little different with the Wysocki
reading. For whatever reason, I got it into my head that the best approach
would be a sort of close reading approach, where we would look together at key
passages and decipher them until we could grasp them. I made a PowerPoint
presentation to help with this, projecting the key passages on screen. I then wanted to focus on synthesis because I had found many strong and significant connections to other readings, which I also thought would be another way the students could grasp this piece. I was wrong.
We did not, of course, begin with this tack. I took one of
Yavanna’s suggestions and projected the Peek ad and asked them a series of
questions (I asked them about 10-12 questions about it). I first asked them to free-write their initial reactions to the ad. The response was
disappointing. I didn’t take Yavanna's suggestion of dividing the class by gender
because I have 4 male students and 14 female. I did bring up if this imbalance
changed their answers or affected what they felt comfortable saying in front of
the female students, and the 4 of them admitted that it good. This question
generated some pretty good response, but they did not relate to Wysocki’s
conflicted feelings (anger and pleasure). They all agreed they had a non-reaction
to the ad, which I was not prepared for. I thought there’d be some disagreement
and that someone would say it was an offensive image.
Instead of taking their lifeless response as an indication
that they either hadn’t read Wysocki closely or didn’t understand it, I moved
on to the text, and we worked through Wysocki’s responses to Williams, Arnheim, Bang, and Kant. As I suggested earlier, this just got worse and
worse. I think they were getting it, but they were not into the close reading
at all, and I eventually lost them. It basically turned into a discussion
between one very participatory student (the one who clearly demonstrated she
had read the article) and me. They wouldn’t even speak up during our discussion
of Wysocki’s claim that this objectification can lead to violence against
women, which I thought would be a very interesting debate. They also didn't latch onto the discussion about using visuals/text as rhetorical choices. One good thing they said to me after I asked them about the lack of discussion was that my power point presentations really help them understand it. I'm not sure how to take that because I don't like using them as a crutch. Although I incorporate a kind of Q and A with my PowerPoints, it still feels a bit like lecture. After observing Heather, I have been impressed with how she led discussion. I feel like I talk too much.
I'm not sure how I'll teach Wysocki next time, but I definitely would like suggestions (I wish we had posted the Wysocki lesson plans to blackboard). One thing is clear to me, though. I will not be having them do dialectical notebooks for assignments anymore (even with the added summary and synthesis). I don't believe the notebooks result in the students' understanding of the texts (at least not any better than the reading responses). I think students skim read for good-sounding passages.
Wednesday: Computer lab day. I began class by going over project 2 again to clear up what they were doing. I should have also gone through what I expected of them because I know they won't read the project 2 instructions themselves. I will do this on Monday. I then told them to take a couple minutes to go through their own literacy narratives (which they wrote out for today) and pick out their main literacy sponsors and any main points. In the example literacy narrative i used, I pointed out how that student essentially described reading as an escape from an unhappy home life. We discussed how this could be used to develop a theme/argument within their groups. They all decided that they didn't need the time to summarize these things, and opted instead to just jump right into it with their groups.
I then went around to each group and tried to provide guidance and suggestions- and tried to complicate their initial ideas. All the groups pretty much had their arguments ready to go by the end of class, with one group still trying to figure it out exactly. For the most part, I was impressed with how well they were working on these and the ideas that they came up with. I also really enjoyed this experience from a teaching perspective quite a bit. I enjoyed being able to be a resource for them as they were brainstorming. It was one of the few times I felt like I had a real purpose and that what I said was effective and helpful.
Friday: Another computer lab day. I spent a bit of time going through some of the mediums listed on the project 2 instructions (I spent some time Thursday going through these myself and picking out the ones I found the most fun/helpful). Everyone really liked XtraNormal, although I think only one group is using that as part of their project. I then spent some time explaining storyboards. Even though they said they had never done them before, they seemed to understand it more quickly than I had anticipated. I'm not sure if I just underestimate their abilities or I am getting better at explaining things. I didn't even need to show the Pixar video. For the rest of class, I went around to each group. I quized them on their arguments and asked each member how their literacies related to the topic. Then I talked to them about which mediums they would use. One group is doing a Prezi ( I also encouraged them to make a website), one is doing a video, one is making a book, and the rest are doing websites (and one is putting an XtraNormal video on a website). I am pleased with both their topics and their chosen mediums. My only concern is that if they don't get the projects mostly finished in the lab days, then one student will end up "finishing it up" for the rest of the group. So I am now working on a way to ensure this doesn't happen.
Overall, the week began poorly after a disappointing Wysocki discussion but improved with the lab days. I enjoyed my role during lab time better than on Monday's discussion. I also graded their project 1 revised essays this week and felt that I provided good comments and feedback to them. I suppose as a teacher I need to focus on being a better discussion leader even though I get the most satisfaction (and feel I do the best job) from being a direct resource/mentor? to the students.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Project 2: Zoom vs. Blues' Clues
For project 2, we are looking at older PBS television shows such as Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, Wishbone, Reading Rainbow, and Zoom. We believe this type of programming inspired young viewers to be proactive in their learning. In other words, their learning did not stop when they turned off the tv. These shows were often interactive or they encouraged interaction with the local community. For instance, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers are both built around a fictional community or neighborhood, and Reading Rainbow encouraged its viewers to hunt down certain books at the local library. We compare PBS programming to contemporary shows like Dora the Explorer and Blue's Clues, which are only superficially interactive with their viewers. They ask their viewers to follow along, but they do not inspire that proactive, emotional response in watchers. Throughout the episode, kids play along and do their part, but when the show is over, that's where the learning stops. They have indeed, done their part, and it ends there.
Blue's Clues
Perhaps the most salient part of this clip is the end song that Steve sings, in which he sings, "Thanks for doing your part, you sure are smart!" The end song is indeed a wrap up. It says goodbye to viewers without also encouraging them to continue learning or continue interaction. The viewer "part" or role begins and ends with each episode.
Zoom
While Blue's Clues encourages merely episodic viewer interaction and learning, Zoom, which is partially created from the suggestions of young viewers, strongly advocates for both interactive communication as well as continual learning. From the theme song: "We're all plugged into one world now. So let's talk; we want to hear from you!" Viewers are asked to send in different activities, riddles, games, experiments, etc.; they are encouraged to share their knowledge and literacies. The above lyrics encourage the viewer to not only interact with the show but to do so after the episode has ended. It prompts action post-episode. Compared with the end song of Blue's Clues, Zoom's ending specifically commands viewers to continue their learning after the show is over: "And if you like what you see, turn off the TV and do it!"Zoom suggests that the best education is the self-motivated education that occurs away from the television, post-episode; viewers are inspired by what they see on the show. Zoom acts as an impetus for learning rather than an end game.
***Note: We will not compare Blue's Clues and Zoom in our actual project because they are aimed at different age groups and education levels. However, although I am analyzing Zoom, some of these points can apply to Sesame Street as well, which is perhaps a more suitable comparison against Blue's Clues.
Blue's Clues
As the title suggests, Blue's Clues involves a sort of question-and-answer interaction between the host, Steve, and the viewer. Based on the clues Blue leaves behind as a way of communication, the viewer is supposed to figure out his message. In the above clip, viewers are supposed to guess based on the three clues (eggs, a tree, and sticks) that Blue saw a bird's nest. But what is this really teaching kids? How often are they supposed figure out riddle-like situations?
Perhaps the most salient part of this clip is the end song that Steve sings, in which he sings, "Thanks for doing your part, you sure are smart!" The end song is indeed a wrap up. It says goodbye to viewers without also encouraging them to continue learning or continue interaction. The viewer "part" or role begins and ends with each episode.
Zoom
***Note: We will not compare Blue's Clues and Zoom in our actual project because they are aimed at different age groups and education levels. However, although I am analyzing Zoom, some of these points can apply to Sesame Street as well, which is perhaps a more suitable comparison against Blue's Clues.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Journal VI
This week marked the start of a new chapter as well as a new class project. I think my students were happy to be done with Project 1 (though I think many of them will choose to revise). Throughout the week, I encouraged them to set up a conference with me if they had concerns about Project 1 before it was due to me. Only two took me up on the offer. Unfortunatley, after grading some of their papers, they really should have. Sometimes I am astounded by the laziness of students (one student didn't revise his paper at all since the intro and synthesis-didn't use any of my suggestions and added even more irrelevant information). I tabled that essay, because I'm not quite sure how to deal with it (do I REQUIRE him to revise or else give him a major violation? I hate to give him a major violation right out because I think he will just shut down). But they have not all been bad, and many vastly improved since the first version I saw of them.
Monday: I introduced Project 2. I didn't do so on Friday because I figured they would forget over the weekend anyway and I also wanted as little overlap with Project 1 as possible. I'm not sure how well I explained what Project 2 would entail because many seemed confused. They seemed to understand it a bit better on Wednesday after we did some work with literacy histories/narratives. We began class by discussing various literacies that they had. I tried to get them to talk about sports, musicality, or hobbies, but there were few takers (and they were the usual students who always participate). My goal for week 7 is to get the quiet students to talk more. I'm a shy person myself, so I hate calling on people; I recently started having them do free-writes at the beginning of the class; that way, if I call on someone who is quiet, he/she at least has an answer prepared. We then talked about sponsors, which they seemed to understand very well. We did the group activity that Talitha suggested and it worked out okay. The Dwayne Lowery group definitely struggled, and Carol White's group I don't think even read the article at all. I also assigned them their groups for Project 2 at the end of class and told them to converse about literacies for the last 5 minutes. Overall, class went well (I think all of my classes went well this week).
Wednesday: I was observed by Christina (although I observed Heather. We did a three-way; hope this doesn't screw things up!). I was nervous at first and honestly have to admit that I prepared a bit more than I would normally. But I almost immediately forgot I was being observed. I was so excited to teach both the hooks and Malcolm X pieces (hooks was a huge influence on my undergrad women's studies...studies). Unfortunately, I made a mistake by forgetting to assign them the Alexie piece as well, which I deeply regretted because, unlike the hooks piece, it was a literacy history and fit perfectly with X. I remedied this later, though, as you will see for Friday's class. I prepared a PowerPoint Presentation for these readings and I thought I made some good connections and generated some good class discussion. I was happy with this class.
Friday: Friday was unique because I had a hitherto unheard of number of absences! Attendance for my class has been excellent because of the grade contract, and many of my hard working, talkative students were absent today. I did the best I could with the Baron piece. I assigned them a dialectical notebook for Baron and I also had them just read the Alexie piece. I didn't discuss the piece, because really it is for their own benefit to see an example of a literacy history, but I did show the Colbert clip that Heather brought up. They didn't find it as funny nor did they really want to discuss what he was saying about e-readers and the digitization of books.
Before I did this, I spent some time re-explaining project 2 because a student had emailed me saying her group went through the WAW assignment 2 questions and didn't know what do to next. I showed the example that John gave us, which I initially hesitated showing because I didn't want them to copy the subject or design. I feel like sometimes my students are lazy and have no idea how to be creative or come up with their own ideas- they want me to hold their hand through it all. This is why I had so many papers on plagiarism and procrastination. So many!
We then discussed Baron. We did the same activity Heather had us do in our 5890 class; it, of course, did not go as well- I was mostly telling them how each technology changed the way we write/communicate. Sometimes I don't know when I should just explain stuff to them ( because they either don't remember or don't know) or when I should be patient and let them try to figure it out (and read the text!) I tend to explain things because I think it's better they understand the concepts from me rather than being unsure themselves...I don't know. We also talked about the stages, which mimicked the way the first activity went, and then we talked about The Golden Age, which generated the most discussion. Overall, given how many were absent, I was okay with how class went on Friday. I did warn them about the Wysocki reading and told them to power through and to come with questions. I'm really worried about teaching it, frankly.
Monday: I introduced Project 2. I didn't do so on Friday because I figured they would forget over the weekend anyway and I also wanted as little overlap with Project 1 as possible. I'm not sure how well I explained what Project 2 would entail because many seemed confused. They seemed to understand it a bit better on Wednesday after we did some work with literacy histories/narratives. We began class by discussing various literacies that they had. I tried to get them to talk about sports, musicality, or hobbies, but there were few takers (and they were the usual students who always participate). My goal for week 7 is to get the quiet students to talk more. I'm a shy person myself, so I hate calling on people; I recently started having them do free-writes at the beginning of the class; that way, if I call on someone who is quiet, he/she at least has an answer prepared. We then talked about sponsors, which they seemed to understand very well. We did the group activity that Talitha suggested and it worked out okay. The Dwayne Lowery group definitely struggled, and Carol White's group I don't think even read the article at all. I also assigned them their groups for Project 2 at the end of class and told them to converse about literacies for the last 5 minutes. Overall, class went well (I think all of my classes went well this week).
Wednesday: I was observed by Christina (although I observed Heather. We did a three-way; hope this doesn't screw things up!). I was nervous at first and honestly have to admit that I prepared a bit more than I would normally. But I almost immediately forgot I was being observed. I was so excited to teach both the hooks and Malcolm X pieces (hooks was a huge influence on my undergrad women's studies...studies). Unfortunately, I made a mistake by forgetting to assign them the Alexie piece as well, which I deeply regretted because, unlike the hooks piece, it was a literacy history and fit perfectly with X. I remedied this later, though, as you will see for Friday's class. I prepared a PowerPoint Presentation for these readings and I thought I made some good connections and generated some good class discussion. I was happy with this class.
Friday: Friday was unique because I had a hitherto unheard of number of absences! Attendance for my class has been excellent because of the grade contract, and many of my hard working, talkative students were absent today. I did the best I could with the Baron piece. I assigned them a dialectical notebook for Baron and I also had them just read the Alexie piece. I didn't discuss the piece, because really it is for their own benefit to see an example of a literacy history, but I did show the Colbert clip that Heather brought up. They didn't find it as funny nor did they really want to discuss what he was saying about e-readers and the digitization of books.
Before I did this, I spent some time re-explaining project 2 because a student had emailed me saying her group went through the WAW assignment 2 questions and didn't know what do to next. I showed the example that John gave us, which I initially hesitated showing because I didn't want them to copy the subject or design. I feel like sometimes my students are lazy and have no idea how to be creative or come up with their own ideas- they want me to hold their hand through it all. This is why I had so many papers on plagiarism and procrastination. So many!
We then discussed Baron. We did the same activity Heather had us do in our 5890 class; it, of course, did not go as well- I was mostly telling them how each technology changed the way we write/communicate. Sometimes I don't know when I should just explain stuff to them ( because they either don't remember or don't know) or when I should be patient and let them try to figure it out (and read the text!) I tend to explain things because I think it's better they understand the concepts from me rather than being unsure themselves...I don't know. We also talked about the stages, which mimicked the way the first activity went, and then we talked about The Golden Age, which generated the most discussion. Overall, given how many were absent, I was okay with how class went on Friday. I did warn them about the Wysocki reading and told them to power through and to come with questions. I'm really worried about teaching it, frankly.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
"The Sticky Embrace of Beauty" by Anne Frances Wysocki
Pre-Reading Exercise
The first thing that came to mind was not really an advertisement but the Kroger reusable bags for breast cancer awareness. Christina brought this to my attention. It features a (pink of course) Rosie the Riveter, but she has been made over to be quite young looking and prettified- not a woman you would think would be up in a bomber factory. I can't find the exact image but it is reminiscent of this:
Instead of something like this:
I'm not opposed to alternative versions of femininity being represented, but it took something that I love to see (women's health awareness, a feminist icon) and tainted it for me.
Summary
In her text "The Sticky Embrace of Beauty," Anne Frances Wysocki argues that old notions of beauty and aesthetics are inadequate for teaching students how to critically approach visual compositions and differentiate between form and content. Wysocki bases her argument around a Peek ad which brings her simultaneously pleasure and anger when viewing it. She argues that ads that objectify people like the Peek ad bring these contradictory emotions because they are abstractions--unparticular/general; Ultimately she advocates for teaching students about visual composition as a rhetorical tool.
Synthesis
Wysocki's piece recalls many different authors. Her final statement about visual composition as a rhetorical tool is reminiscent of both Kantz's rhetorical situation and Dawkin's idea of using another composition element (punctuation) as rhetorical. But because Wysocki's piece deals mostly with visual images/graphic design, her article is most similar to Baron, Bernhardt, Berger, and especially McCloud. She argues that beauty and aesthetics are complicated with the advent of new media and new technology, which relates to Baron. I think the four "design principles" she mentions from Robin Williams (contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity) relates back to Bernhardt in emphasizing the importance of paying attention to how your audience will read and view your work (and where their eyes are likely to go first) (80). It relates to Berger because it addresses specifically the objectification of women's bodies and the idea that women are "surveyed" and to be looked at. The most obvious connections to me were with McCloud: his vocabulary icons, symbols, etc.) to analyze visual texts, the idea of icons as abstractions, and the "simplification through amplification" concept:"In the telling of Arnheim and Bang, it is an almost character-less self, looking out from a body whose actions are constrained only by gravity. This is a body without culture, race, class, gender, or age....the body exists nowhere in abstraction, the body whose seeing--and understanding of what is seen--is now understood to be as constructed as any other cultural practice" (85). Whereas McCloud praises the ability of comics to bring about feelings of universality because of their abstract nature, Wysocki argues that these things are dangerous for how we view images/beauty/aesthetics.
QD
2. Wysocki definitely plays with her texts. She is very aware with what she is arguing. Unlike how I felt with Bernhardt, I thought she practiced what she preached. She not only had images, but there were separations, headings, bolded text, highlighted text, charts, etc. It was certainly a high-visual text rather than a low-visual text. It almost made it so the long, unbroken text sections were a struggle to get through precisely because she was otherwise playing with the design of the text. Perhaps that was intentional: she made visually interesting what she wanted the reader to pay particular attention to.
3. I am interested in reading the book, but I'm not sure how much influence the image of the woman has on that. I'm very intrigued by Kinsey and would be interested in what the book is about anyway even if it was not accompanied by a scantily clad woman. But I do agree with Wysocki on where the eyes are drawn to and why. It was a very interesting explanation. I'm not familiar with art and form theory so I had no idea so much science/planning went into it (other than having a focal point).
AE
2. I definitely buy the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I can never figure out "the rules" for what is aesthetically pleasing/attractive. I do not think that something has to be universally pleasing to be beautiful, because I don't think such an instance is possible and nothing is inherently beautiful. Because of how beauty ideals change, I do think that beauty/aesthetics are subject to social construction/forces.
Thoughts
I really enjoyed this piece even though I admit I struggled through reading it (both in understanding and because of the topic/length). I of course worry all the time about assigning long, difficult texts to my students and how I will try to make them understand something I'm sure I don't accurately understand myself. But I think this piece is ripe with connections to other texts, so that is something we can latch onto. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I'll relate it to Project 2, which I want them to be thinking about with all the readings we do.
Pre-Reading Exercise
The first thing that came to mind was not really an advertisement but the Kroger reusable bags for breast cancer awareness. Christina brought this to my attention. It features a (pink of course) Rosie the Riveter, but she has been made over to be quite young looking and prettified- not a woman you would think would be up in a bomber factory. I can't find the exact image but it is reminiscent of this:
Summary
In her text "The Sticky Embrace of Beauty," Anne Frances Wysocki argues that old notions of beauty and aesthetics are inadequate for teaching students how to critically approach visual compositions and differentiate between form and content. Wysocki bases her argument around a Peek ad which brings her simultaneously pleasure and anger when viewing it. She argues that ads that objectify people like the Peek ad bring these contradictory emotions because they are abstractions--unparticular/general; Ultimately she advocates for teaching students about visual composition as a rhetorical tool.
Synthesis
Wysocki's piece recalls many different authors. Her final statement about visual composition as a rhetorical tool is reminiscent of both Kantz's rhetorical situation and Dawkin's idea of using another composition element (punctuation) as rhetorical. But because Wysocki's piece deals mostly with visual images/graphic design, her article is most similar to Baron, Bernhardt, Berger, and especially McCloud. She argues that beauty and aesthetics are complicated with the advent of new media and new technology, which relates to Baron. I think the four "design principles" she mentions from Robin Williams (contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity) relates back to Bernhardt in emphasizing the importance of paying attention to how your audience will read and view your work (and where their eyes are likely to go first) (80). It relates to Berger because it addresses specifically the objectification of women's bodies and the idea that women are "surveyed" and to be looked at. The most obvious connections to me were with McCloud: his vocabulary icons, symbols, etc.) to analyze visual texts, the idea of icons as abstractions, and the "simplification through amplification" concept:"In the telling of Arnheim and Bang, it is an almost character-less self, looking out from a body whose actions are constrained only by gravity. This is a body without culture, race, class, gender, or age....the body exists nowhere in abstraction, the body whose seeing--and understanding of what is seen--is now understood to be as constructed as any other cultural practice" (85). Whereas McCloud praises the ability of comics to bring about feelings of universality because of their abstract nature, Wysocki argues that these things are dangerous for how we view images/beauty/aesthetics.
QD
2. Wysocki definitely plays with her texts. She is very aware with what she is arguing. Unlike how I felt with Bernhardt, I thought she practiced what she preached. She not only had images, but there were separations, headings, bolded text, highlighted text, charts, etc. It was certainly a high-visual text rather than a low-visual text. It almost made it so the long, unbroken text sections were a struggle to get through precisely because she was otherwise playing with the design of the text. Perhaps that was intentional: she made visually interesting what she wanted the reader to pay particular attention to.
3. I am interested in reading the book, but I'm not sure how much influence the image of the woman has on that. I'm very intrigued by Kinsey and would be interested in what the book is about anyway even if it was not accompanied by a scantily clad woman. But I do agree with Wysocki on where the eyes are drawn to and why. It was a very interesting explanation. I'm not familiar with art and form theory so I had no idea so much science/planning went into it (other than having a focal point).
AE
2. I definitely buy the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I can never figure out "the rules" for what is aesthetically pleasing/attractive. I do not think that something has to be universally pleasing to be beautiful, because I don't think such an instance is possible and nothing is inherently beautiful. Because of how beauty ideals change, I do think that beauty/aesthetics are subject to social construction/forces.
Thoughts
I really enjoyed this piece even though I admit I struggled through reading it (both in understanding and because of the topic/length). I of course worry all the time about assigning long, difficult texts to my students and how I will try to make them understand something I'm sure I don't accurately understand myself. But I think this piece is ripe with connections to other texts, so that is something we can latch onto. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I'll relate it to Project 2, which I want them to be thinking about with all the readings we do.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Baron IWA
|
Baron starts off with his argument: writing technology
will or can change literacy practices.
|
“The computer, the latest development in writing
technology, promises, or threatens, to change literacy practices for better
or worse, depending on your point of view” (423).
|
|
Baron also claims that not only will writing technology
change literacy, but people need to remember that writing is a technology.
|
“…it is easy to forget that whether it consists of
energized particles on a screen or ink embedded in paper or lines gouged into
clay tablets, writing itself is always first and foremost a technology, a way
of engineering materials in order to accomplish an end” (424).
|
|
This is the first stage of literacy technology: available
to an elite few.
|
“The technology expands beyond this ‘priestly’ class when
it is adapted to familiar functions often associated with an older, accepted
form of communication” (424).
|
|
This made me think of Bryson criticizing those people who
resist and are terrified of change. It also refers to the common line of
thinking that “older is better” and a proclivity for nostalgia.
|
“And as the technology spreads, so do reactions against it
from supporters of what are purported to be older, simpler, better, or more
honesty ways of writing” (425).
|
|
Mixed reaction to brand new technology: trepidation as
well as curiosity; makes me think of the reactions to Kindles, Twitter, etc.
|
“Although I’m not aware that anyone actually opposed the
use of pencils when they began to be used for writing, other literacy
technologies, including writing itself, were initially met with suspicion as
well as enthusiasm” (425).
|
|
Reminds me of the printing press stuff in Brandt.
|
“The pencil may be old, but like the computer today and
the telegraph in 1849, it is an indisputable example of a communication
technology” (426).
|
|
Baron’s main point: writing is a technology and it was the
first “writing technology.”
|
“Of course the first writing technology was writing itself”
(426).
|
|
Again, recalls Bryson.
|
“Both the supporters and the critics of new communication
technologies like to compare them to the good, or bad, old days” (427).
|
|
Brandt! Increasing literacy standards and people w/o money
or of lower SES could not compete/keep up. Only accessible to wealthy.
|
“…writing technology remained both cumbersome and
expensive: writing instruments, paints, and inks had to be hand made, and
writing surfaces like clay tablets, wax tablets, and papyrus had to be laboriously
prepared” (428).
|
|
I just liked this section. Highlights the importance of
writing technology.
|
“ Writing…also permits new ways of bridging time and
space. Conversations become letters. Sagas become novels. Customs become
legal codes. The written language takes on a life of its own, and it even
begins to influence how the spoken language is used” 428-429).
|
|
Another stage Baron mentions. To give documents
credibility, seals, signatures, etc. added.
|
“In order to gain acceptance, a new literacy technology
must also develop a means of authenticating itself…. Written documents did
not respond to questions—they were not interactive. So the writers and users
of documents had to develop their own means of authentication” (429).
|
|
I love this term. How can I become a futurologist? I just
picture bong hits and wild speculation.
|
“Futurologists” (433).
|
|
Baron briefly mentioned at the beginning that some people
think computers threaten literacy technology; this is one way technology can
be threatening or dangerous.
|
“Of course the telephone was not only a source of
information. It also threatened our privacy” (433).
|
|
Mis/Reappropriation kind of similar to what Brandt talks
about, but this time w/ new technologies and their intended purposes. Manifest/latent
functions.
|
“Similarly, the mainframe computer when it was introduced
was intended to perform numerical calculations too tedious or complex to do
by hand…Computer operators actually scorned the thought of using their
powerful number-crunchers to process mere words” (434).
|
|
Again, only available to the wealthy elite few who could
afford it.
|
“…they still had to come up with the requisite $5,000 or
more in start-up funds for an entry-level personal computer” (435).
|
|
Another stage: new technologies imitate or incorporate the
old technology to become accepted. It also became more affordable.
|
“Only when Macintosh and Windows operating systems allowed
users to create on screen documents that looked and felt like the old familiar
documents they were used to creating on electric typewriters did word
processing really become popular. At the same time, start up costs decreased
significantly and, with new, affordable hardware, computer writing technology
quickly moved from the imitation of typing to the inclusion of graphics”
(436).
|
|
ID theft. I also think about the unreliability of Wikipedia
entries as well as photoshop.
|
“The security of transactions, of passwords, credit card
numbers, and bank accounts becomes vital. But the security and authenticity
of ‘ordinary’ texts is a major concern as well” (436).
|
|
Illustrative of adaptation and how attitudes change about
technology overtime. Does everyone come around to acceptance?
|
“When we began to use computers in university writing
classes, instructors didn’t tell students about spell-check programs on their
word processors, fearing the students would forget how to spell. The hackers
found the spelling checkers anyway, and now teachers complain if their
students don’t run the spell check before they turn their papers in” (438).
|
|
I think this quotes speaks to how some older technologies
are retained over newer technologies depending on the discourse
community/subject. For instance, some people might like Kindles but maybe for
lit. study, the actual text is better because of page number,
highlighting/commenting, etc.
|
“Eraserless pencils are now extremely rare. Artists use
them, because artists need special erasers in their work; golfers too use
pencils without ersaser, perhaps to keep themselves honest” (438-39).
|
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Literacy Narrative
The
first book I ever learned to read was called Snack Attack. It was a pop-up book with images of various animals
eating other animals. This was not as cannibalistically inappropriate as it
seems; for the twist at the end of the story is that all the animals are
actually animal crackers being eaten by the ultimate carnivore: a little boy. I
do not have very vivid memories and recall this only because, in an act of
nostalgia, I ordered the book on Amazon not six months ago. I've always
remembered Snack Attack, but little
else about that time is clear.
I
do not recall the age. What age do kids learn to read? I cannot even recall if
I was an early reader. In my mind, several fragments remain: a Kindergarten
teacher with a name like my own—Mrs. Chicarelli—and The Letter People, but I don’t
know for sure if this was the same time. A teacher is absent, so maybe this is
pre-kindergarten. Pre-school.
During my Snack Attack phase, teachers are absent, but my parents are there. Every
week--so indulgent--there I am sitting on the recliner, hideous brown afghan
wrapped around me, practicing reading aloud from Snack Attack to my parents. I knew that reading aloud to others was
the mark of a learned person because I watched my mom read to her third-grade
students during take-your-daughter-to-work day. I learned to admire writing
from the movies, painting from Bob Ross, and reading from my mom.
How
many times did I have to read it out loud until I said everything perfect all
the way through? I remember tripping over the word “the.” Who knows how long it
took, but the evening I did it, I remember applause. Even my brother, never one
to share the spotlight, joined in. No doubt that day marked the beginning of a
lifetime of seeking my parents' approval and praise. Sometimes reading can be
unhealthy.
Throughout elementary school, reading remained an important part of my life, though mostly as a means of trying to impress people. "Wow, you read Little Women in the fourth grade?! It must be your favorite book, you've checked it out 10 times!"
No.
But I pretended I had read it, enjoyed it, understood it. Truthfully, I was more content to read the Bailey School Kids, but I knew that thick books impressed people.
The need to impress people didn't last forever. As I became more literate in other things, like teenage angst, I drew away from trying hard in school. I preferred to be in the average English classes than the AP. My high school experience can be described as "okay." I did alright in high school; I excelled in college. College was where I learned that to write I needed to read, and to read I needed to write. It wasn't about impressing people--having others make remarks about you. It was about saying something--important things--yourself.
When I recently received Snack Attack I did not experience the meaningful trip down memory lane I expected. The book is small, short, and anti-climactic. The words are sparse- it is a picture book. This was the first book I learned to read? A pop-up book with maybe 8 sentences? How pathetic. Now it sits on the bookshelf at my parent’s house. It is interesting to me only for considering why my mom threw away Snack Attack but kept my brother’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea pop-up book. My mom’s reaction to seeing the book again after all these years mirrored my own: a brief chuckle, a flip through, and then…So What? Is she supposed to remember her grad student daughter mispronouncing “the”? Everyone starts somewhere.
Throughout elementary school, reading remained an important part of my life, though mostly as a means of trying to impress people. "Wow, you read Little Women in the fourth grade?! It must be your favorite book, you've checked it out 10 times!"
No.
But I pretended I had read it, enjoyed it, understood it. Truthfully, I was more content to read the Bailey School Kids, but I knew that thick books impressed people.
The need to impress people didn't last forever. As I became more literate in other things, like teenage angst, I drew away from trying hard in school. I preferred to be in the average English classes than the AP. My high school experience can be described as "okay." I did alright in high school; I excelled in college. College was where I learned that to write I needed to read, and to read I needed to write. It wasn't about impressing people--having others make remarks about you. It was about saying something--important things--yourself.
When I recently received Snack Attack I did not experience the meaningful trip down memory lane I expected. The book is small, short, and anti-climactic. The words are sparse- it is a picture book. This was the first book I learned to read? A pop-up book with maybe 8 sentences? How pathetic. Now it sits on the bookshelf at my parent’s house. It is interesting to me only for considering why my mom threw away Snack Attack but kept my brother’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea pop-up book. My mom’s reaction to seeing the book again after all these years mirrored my own: a brief chuckle, a flip through, and then…So What? Is she supposed to remember her grad student daughter mispronouncing “the”? Everyone starts somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)