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.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)