Allen IWA

-->

Pre-reading Exercise

           

            When I think of experienced writers, I do tend to think they have an easier time writing than I. I think there is a prevalent idea about professional writers that they have a natural talent and that writing pours out of them. They may face some roadblocks, but those are also easier to overcome than the average student. The thing about this notion of the natural writer is that I know that it is a misconception; all writers struggle to work. Sometimes, the act of writing is so defeating because it is not at all easy, and you assume that you are simply not cut out for it—its for the professionals. For instance, there is such mind-blowing talent in Beloved that Toni Morrison seems to have done something not humanly possible, and thus, I assume that her writing process is also something regular people could never do.  

Summary

           

            In her text “The Inspired Writer vs. The Real Writer,” Sarah Allen attacks the myth of the natural or “inspired” writer, who, because he or she can write well, is automatically bursting with ideas and effortlessly puts words to paper. Allen also addresses the question of what it means to “be good at writing.” Does that necessarily mean that writing is easy? Ultimately she argues that to write is to enter an “alien discourse, an area of study unfamiliar to use. Because it is alien it sprouts fear and anxiety. Although Allen says that even experienced writers never overcome the “alien discourse,” she offers tips to help novice writers enter the community: imitate the organization of experienced writers and let other more experienced writers read the drafts.

Synthesis

            As she deconstructs the myth of the “inspired writer,” Allen also addresses the characteristics of the “real writer.” Like Greene, Allen notes that experienced writers “had to answer to the great works that had been written before them” (Allen 30). They both share the idea that one has to learn the history, do the homework, before entering the conversation. The metaphor Allen uses, however, is a basketball court, not a conversation. Like Margaret Kantz, Allen also talks about the danger of being too concerned with providing correct information than original arguments. Allen describes the work writers have to do to learn the history before them, and come up with an original argument as “digging,” which recalls Kleine’s Hunter/Gatherer metaphor for compiling information.

QD

2. Allen’s suggests that students overcome the myth of the inspired writer by imitating real, experienced writers. Specifically, Allen proposes that students read some effective scholarship and imitate those writers’ organizational patterns and rhetorical devices. She also suggests that students have someone read over their draft, even before a peer-review. She notes that it is important for this reader to be someone who writes better than the

--> writer (a teacher, boss, a mentor, etc.) Finally, she proposes that novice writers begin to view their own work as worthwhile so as to eliminate the divide between their idea of inspired writers and what they do as writers themselves.

3. According to Allen's definition and description of "collusion," I've definitely done this. First of all, in high school, I used to have my mother edit my papers. In college, I've read other people's papers and made editing suggestions. I've also utilized the student writing center in which they've proofed my papers. I hadn't thought of it as plagiarism. I can see it as misrepresentation of your own work, but I think there is a huge difference between fraudulent plagiarism and this collusion.

AE

1. I would say in a more general way that I have utilized Allen's method of imitation. That is to say, I probably write the way I do because of all the scholarship I've read. I know that the way I wrote as a Sophomore versus the way I write now is dramatically different, and all that changed was the amount of scholarship I read. I think the imitation is more of a subconscious thing; certain ways of saying things or organizational patterns creep into your head as you're writing, as they become more and more familiar from the scholarship that you read. I think it's a good strategy, though some rigid people might call it a form of plagiarism. 

2. I definitely agree with Allen that a purpose of writing is connection, although I would definitely change the phrasing form "the purpose" to "a purpose." I also write and read to make sense of things, to find new meaning in things, and to expand my thinking. There are many purposes to writing, but a big one for me would certainly be connection. It is, after all, a form of communication. And anything that inspires empathy or understanding is worthwhile to me. 

Thoughts

     I think Allen's piece will be very accessible to students. I found her narrative incredibly identifiable at different points, and I hope they will, too. Ultimately I think that this piece strives to give students some authority in their writing. Because it deconstructs the myth of the inspired writer and attempts to connect the experienced writer to the novice writer (they both struggle with the same things!), I think that it can empower them or at least instill more confidence in them as writers.

 

Murray Dialectical Notebook

"All Writing is Autobiography" by Donald M. Murray

Writing depends on social location and personal perspective. Just as everyone has a different way of viewing the world, based on who they are, everyone has a different way of communicating (writing).	“I have my own peculiar way of looking at the world and my own way of using language to communicate what I see. My voice is the product of Scottish genes and a Yankee environment, of Baptist sermons and the newspaper city room, of all the language I have heard and spoken” (58).
Murray enters the conversation; gives history of the dialogue about writing as autobiographical.	“Willa Cather declared…Graham Greene gave…John Hawkes has said…” (58).
Murray shows how the personal essay, or the reflective essay, can use framing (Greene): leaving certain things out/focusing on other things specifically. It is selective, telling the reader certain things, manipulating them toward a viewpoint. Also recalls McCloud’s amplification/simplification concept. Moreover, it adds to the idea of teaching our students to read new texts (personal essay) to see these same rhetorical devices at work.	“This is simple narrative with the facts all true, but it is really not that simple; few things are in writing or in life. The details are selective. A great deal of family history is left out. A great many details about the day, the illness, where it was taking place and why were left out…. I wrote a limited truth seeking a limited understanding, what Robert Frost called ‘a momentary stay of confusion” (60-61).
Murray quoting Don DeLillo. What about nonfiction? Murray mentions the personal essay, but the selective aspect of that sort of essay makes it more fiction than nonfiction, in a way. Can wholly nonfiction writing be autobiographical? And can it do the same things Murray says fiction can do?	“’Over the years it’s possible for a writer to shape himself as a human being through the language he uses. I think written language, fiction, goes that deep’” (62).
Here, Murray starts to address my above question.	“But of course I’ve been talking about fiction, a liar’s profession, so let us turn to the realistic world of nonfiction (63).
Murray’s description of his “layering process.” Recalls the recursive process he demonstrated in the Berkenkotter piece on a skilled writer	‘Each day I lay down a new layer of text and when I read it the next day, the new layer reveals more possibility’ (63).
Then the answer to my above question is Yes: nonfiction is also autobiography, because we (writers) make it up no matter what; writers invent prose. Recalls Kantz’s idea that creativity exists in academic writing.	“Well, that is academic writing, writing to instruct, textbook writing. It is clearly nonfiction, and to me it is clearly autobiography…We make up our own history, our own legends, our own knowledge by writing our autobiography” (64).
Murray quotes from Notebooks of the Mind by Vera John-Steiner. In order for creativity to exist in student writing, they need to be able to write on subjects that interest them, that will feed their obsession (or concern/curiosity (David/Shadle).	“Creativity requires a continuity of concern, an intense awareness of one’s active inner life combined with sensitivity to the external world” (64).
This is Murray’s argument: allow students to write on subjects that interest them. This change will spark creativity and feed their curiosities. He also mentions the multiple genre idea as mentioned by David and Shadle.	“I do not think we should move away from personal or reflective narrative in composition courses, but closer to it; I do not think we should limit reflective narrative to a single genre; I do not think we should make sure our students write on many different subjects, but that they write and rewrite in pursuit of those few subjects which obsess them” (64).
A nice, succinct explanation of what Murray means exactly by autobiography. If students were to ask, “When is nonfiction writing autobiographical?”, point to this passage. Answer: When the author is telling other people to do something that is important to them (the author).	“…telling other people to do what is important to me” (64).
Also related to reading!	“That is the terrible, wonderful power of reading: the texts we create in our own minds while we read—or just after we read—become part of the life we believe we lived. Another thesis: all reading is autobiographical” (65).

Berkenkotter and Murray Reading Response

Summary

In Carol Berkenkotter’s article “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer,” she attempts to explore the writing process (setting, tasks, etc.) of a writer in a “naturalistic” (219) manner rather than a laboratory setting. According to Berkenkotter, the laboratory setting is so different from a writer’s regular setting that it drastically alters and affects the writer’s composition process. In other words, in order to most authentically and usefully explore writers’ processes, it would be most helpful to observe them in their natural setting, which the laboratory inhibits. Donald M. Murray’s article is his response as a subject of the study. Among the revelations the study brought Murray include the feeling of performance that the one-hour protocol instilled (pointing again to the inadequacies of studying the composition process clinically rather than naturally) as well as an understanding of the importance of planning and introspection before and during the writing process. 

Synthesis

Berkenkotter’s article exemplifies John Swales’s method for creating a research space by establishing a niche (exploration and study of how writers revise) as well as attempting to occupy that niche by indicating a problem with or failing of current research (laboratory inadequately replicates a writer’s setting) (Swale 7-8). Similarly, readers can detect Stuart Greene’s “framing” concept from his article “Argument as Conversation” (Greene 14). Berkenkotter frames her discussion and subsequent exploration of the revision process for writers with Janet Emig’s criticism of the “context stripping” that occurs in most research about writing processes (218).   The framework, then, for Berkenkotter’s article is the inadequacy of research based upon the observation of writers in an inauthentic space, which has hitherto been used to study the way writers compose. In response, Berkenkotter offers a new methodology to analyze and study a writer’s composition process within a “naturalistic” space. It is also important to note that Berkenkotter’s study specifically focuses on a skilled, successful writer, Donald M. Murray, rather than an unskilled writer, as in Sondra Perl’s article. Thus, rather than learning from what less skilled writers do incorrectly or insufficiently, Berkenkotter furthers a method of learning based upon what successful writers do successfully and teaching students to focus on what to do rather than what not to do.

Pre-writing Exercise

            The writing process for me does not come easily or naturally, something I am quickly learning is actually quite common with even successful professional writers. In general, I write only when I have to, and I wait as long as I possibly can to begin the actual typing on the computer. I usually spend a lot of time researching first, but this varies based upon how much difficulty I’m having coming up with a thesis/argument. Sometimes I have a clear thesis in my head the whole time I read something. At other times, I waste a ton of time reading articles and books that I know I most likely won’t end up using, just on the off chance that I’ll read something that will spark my brain. When I’ve finished all the procrastinating and pre-planning, I prefer to write things out on paper first. However, I am also impatient with this and after I write out an (bad) introduction, I usually end up just switching over to the laptop. I also take a lot of breaks and naps while writing. 

QD 1

            Donald Murray has a much more intricate and professional strategy for his writing. His time certainly isn’t wasted on hours reading tumblr and watching Netflix. One of the things that struck me was that he dictates his notes to his wife. Since I am impatient, it initially seemed tedious to me because this strategy means that he is reading his drafts aloud, having them typed up, and then, once again, reading them aloud. However, I also see the benefits of collaboration with this process, or, at least, the benefits of forcing his mind to consider an audience and how his words sound to others.  I often read some of my sentences out loud if I am unsure of logic or phrasing, but I never read the whole thing out loud. Like Murray, I also believe I spend most of the process planning. Initially I thought that I spent a lot of time editing and revising, but the more I think about it, I also believe that the order of time spent on the categories of the writing process agree with Murray’s: Planning, Evaluation, Editing, and Revising. I find it hard to distinguish between these categories completely, but I feel that I am almost constantly evaluating my writing. I was also pleased to read about Murray’s introspection and the fact that some of his ideas were born when he was not officially working, such as while he was shaving or in the instances of, to use Murray’s own words, “bathroom epiphanies.” 

QD 3

            The study led Berkenkotter to some important revelations in regard to planning and revising. She found that the most time was spent on steps related to planning, but her biggest surprise was that the least amount of time was spent revising. Not only was the least amount of time spent on the revision process, but it was also significantly lower than planning, evaluating, and editing. She seemed to have discovered that it was incredibly hard to distinguish between the processes, especially because the steps often overlapped or lead to the other steps. For instance, when Murray edited, it often led to planning. Berkenkotter found that planning and revising overlapped, which led to her discussion of the concept of reconceiving, or major revision. If reconceiving means approaching the text from the perspective of an outside reader, it could also be considered evaluation. Although these steps overlap- Berkenkotter describes how the steps work together as a “network” wherein the writer moves back and forth between the different steps- the overall thread among all of the steps seems to be bearing the audience in mind.  Murray was constantly aware of his audience and, as Berkenkotter points out, “his most substantive changes, what he calls ‘internal revision,’ occurred as he turned his thoughts toward his audience” (228). 

AE 

            I would consider myself an average writer, meaning that I have average skill. While I wouldn’t say I am unskilled, like the students in Sondra Perl’s article, I certainly have a lot of weak areas in my composition process. I believe I spend too much time pre-planning without first revising i.e. developing my ideas. Both Berkenkotter’s article and Murray’s response provided many insights, but perhaps the most significant points were those on revision as a step. One of the biggest differences I find between Murray’s skilled writing and mine is that he does not seem to need revision; he has his ideas already. He knows what he wants to say, he just needs to plan how he will say it. In other words, he is a skilled writer because he can focus on his rhetorical presentation rather than his ideas, whereas a less skilled writer like myself must still spend most of the time developing ideas.  

MM

     While I think I probably also spend the least time revising out of the four steps, I spend a great deal more time revising than Murray did. I think that if I improve my writing, I will also be able to decrease the amount of time I need to develop my ideas. On a related note, I also think the number of drafts Murray develops is a significant factor. The more drafts he writes, the more familiar the ideas become, so he doesn’t need to spend more time developing them even as he continues to develop his rhetorical presentation. On the other hand, I usually only write two drafts (one rough and one final) and edit once before I have to submit. While my paper may be adequate, if I spent more time planning and reconceiving, my ideas would be stronger as well as better articulated.

Journal: Week II

This week was a shorter week, which was a nice little break from an uneven and mediocre first week of teaching. Still, it was not without its highs and lows.

Monday: Labor Day. Some of the students' writing constructs started trickling in. Many of them were predictable: plagiarism, procrastination, grammar. But some of them were a little bit more thoughtful. I liked their proposals best when they explained their personal experiences with these constructs and how it had negatively affected their own writing. For instance, one student explained how her teacher would cross out whole paragraphs saying because of wordiness, but would provide no further feedback about how to correct such wordiness. I thought this was great start, with implications of a failing on the part of the instructor.

The low point of the proposals came when one student sent me one completely unrelated to writing. I was dismayed and slightly panicky, but since he was the only outlier, I realized it probably wasn't my fault he was off. I spent time with him during Friday's lab time, making sure he had a construct, some good search terms, and possible avenues of exploration.

Wednesday: I was excited for this class because I had a very full class plan. I knew coming off of the first week that my weakest area was class discussion. I knew I had to incorporate more group work and activities rather than just question and answer (because discussion rarely came from the Q &A method). Oddly, although I had two class activities planned for that day, I think the strongest part of Wednesday's class was the discussion. This was the first one in which I didn't put the desks in a circle. I first split them up in 4 groups and gave each group a task. Group 1: Summary Group 2: synthesis Group 3: QD 1,3 Group 4: AE 1, MM. This took a little longer than I would have liked, but I had planned for that (I was okay with not doing the second activity if we ran out of time; it would just be extra). As I asked each group to present what they came up with, I weaved in different points I thought were important: Shirley vs. Alice- what qualities did each have and why were they attributes/weakness? Did you relate to Shirley? etc.; Kinneavy's Triangle Diagram for Identifying the Rhetorical Situation; how to read sources correctly/ identifying the rhetorical gap. I just stood at the blackboard and made lists or diagrams for this part, but the students were the most responsive they'd ever been. I think it was the group activity that sparked more energy.
     We had about 10 minutes left of class, so I had them stay in their groups (and I split up the fourth group into the others) as I passed around their second activity; the goal for this was to practice reading sources using Kantz's strategies for identifying the rhetorical gap. For time, I could only present them with introductions to 3 different scholarly articles, and I asked them to identify: the argument, the encoder, decoder, and situation, and try to answer the questions Kantz presents: "Who is the author writing this for?" "What is the author saying for the problem he or she assumes that I have?" "So What?" etc. They struggled with this (it isn't ideal, because it is only the introduction), but they made a nice attempt, and I hope that it was helpful. The goal was to have them discuss it in groups and then present their thoughts (each group had copies of the other introductions). But of course we ran out of time. I contemplated having them post their findings on the blog, but I decided against it because I didn't want to give them for homework for Friday. I hindsight, I would have liked to have something tangible to show whether the exercise did anything at all. As it is, I can only guess whether they got the idea or not.

Friday: This was a pretty standard class; I wasn't feeling well, so it was hard to muster enthusiasm. One thing I hadn't thought about teaching was how much talking I would have to do, and its affect on my throat. I usually am very quiet and soft-spoken, so I struggle to be heard; as a result, my throat has been very sore as of late.
      A lot of time was eaten up by the students' unfamiliarity with the computers; I posted the powerpoint online and had them follow along on their own computers so they could link to the sites and search along with me. They didn't know how to register their computer for Microsoft PP, so that took forever; so much for this generation being tech savvy. I gave my presentation, and like usual, they were pretty quiet when I asked them if they had any questions. The rest of the time was for them to research, and I went around asking the students what their constructs were and helping them narrow down their topics. With 10 minutes left, I cut in to explain to them their homework for Monday. I did this so I wouldn't forget, and had the expectation that they would go back to researching after I finished, but I should have known better. I showed them where they could find the Berger/McCloud apparatus and the Berger reading as well as where they could find the instructions for which questions to answer. They had no questions to this. Then, with 5 minutes left, they started to log off and pack up. I was dumbfounded at their boldness. I told them that they could still get in some researching, but they said they had already logged off. I let them go, but I was pretty upset.

Cut to Sunday night when many students have emailed me saying they don't understand what they need to do for Monday's readings. I was so exasperated that I sent an email telling them that they need to start writing stuff down, and that professors do not expect to have to give their students instructions more than once. There were, of course, 5 minutes left of class for any questions about the assignment.

This second week taught me the importance of preparedness and a full lesson plan. I am also ready to be a bit more authoritative; some behavior is just unacceptable.

Berger Reading Response

Pre-Reading Exercise

            This was easy. There are so many examples to choose from, but I’m choosing an image that is most recent to me. Compare British GQ’s 2012 Woman of the Year to their Men of the Year. Notice a difference? Unbelievable. GQ is one of the worst.

Summary

            In Ways of Seeing, John Berger looks to nude artwork to demonstrate how women are objectified and made to be surveyed- to be looked at-, while men are the surveyors- the voyeurs. Berger distinguishes between nakedness and nudity: “To be naked is to be oneself. To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself” (Berger 211). Female nudes are for men’s sexuality and an exploitation of women’s.

            There are definite similarities between Berger’s piece and McCloud’s. The way in which Berger talks about the need for the demystification of the other, to make things banal, recalls both McCloud’s concept of “amplification through simplification” and the idea that cartoons represent universality: both are meant to ground the reader/viewer in reality. Moreover, Berger presents to his readers the idea of women and their sexuality as abstractions.

QD

2. Jean Kilbourne’s “Killing Us Softly” series does an excellent job of representing how women are presented in popular culture and advertisements. The objectification and exploitation is always incredibly unsettling, even when you know by now that it happens. One of the most upsetting aspects about the exploitation of women is that it is mostly men who reproduce and perpetuate these constructs and images of women. Then, women feel they must display their sexualities in order to be accepted (like when Berger says “Those who are not judged beautiful are not beautiful” (Berger 210)). Images of posed women are also all over music videos, in all genres: rock, rap, country, pop, etc. There is a documentary called Dreamworld about women in music videos that unsettled me for days after I watched it. I think things have gotten worse since Berger wrote this piece as there are so many different mediums for women to be exploited now.

3. I think these assumptions still abound. I certainly agree that sexism hurts both men and women, and men face enormous pressure to be powerful and successful. But there is certainly a difference in the expectations that men and women face. A woman’s presence is entirely determined by her appearance, while men can convey power in different ways.

AE

1. This is such an interesting question. I think this question would be answered differently in Berger’s time than it would today, because now, even men face enormous pressure to conform to appearance ideals. I can think of Playgirl or images of athletes shirtless that might speak to this phenomenon affecting men as well. However, it’s important to note that although these men are objectified, they also still have the presence of power, of agency, which I think is always absent from images of women. It’s also interesting that women can appear naked on film, but full frontal images of men are x-rated; our society does not treat men’s bodies the same as women’s. If it’s men being objectified, it usually exists as humor.

3. This question makes me think of supermodels who seem to always be in submissive poses. They are curled up or hugging themselves, trying to makes themselves as small as possible. This pose is greatly contrasted when there is also a man in the image, who is always overbearing, aggressive, present, etc. I cannot recall an image in which the man is posed as anything other than powerful, let alone passive.

Final Thoughts

            I really liked Berger’s piece, although it did take me a few read-throughs to fully appreciate. Sometimes these articles about the objectification of women seem like old hat and futile because nothing ever changes, but Berger has some new concepts. I liked the connection to McCloud and the idea of women as abstractions and the need to demystify the other to ground viewers in reality. I also found the exercises that asked us to find specific images interesting, because I’ve looked for these types of images before, and every time I return, there are always more unsettling images to use. I think Magic Mike is interesting, and I haven’t seen the film, but I would be surprised if these men weren’t depicted as somehow powerful and in charge, in addition to it being a joke that men are strippers.

McCloud Reading Response

Before You Read

            As I look around my bedroom, I do see some faces in various inanimate objects. The plug holes in the outlets definitely look like a face. I have a rather large abstract painting on one of my walls. On it there are mostly what I would call squiggles and irregular shapes, but I do see several faces and especially what look like bodies now that I look at it. For what it’s worth, I can also pick out some animal shapes (giraffe) in it as well. My desk drawers also resemble a human face, with the handle in the middle forming the mouth, and the slots in the wood as the eyes. I have to say that I have never seen these faces in these objects before. I think it might be more a matter of seeing what you are looking for. That is, if someone tells you something looks like a face or some other shape, you are more likely to see it because you are looking for it as well as looking at the same object with a new perspective. Once you see things a certain way, it’s hard to unsee them.

Summary

            In “The Vocabulary of Comics” Scott McCloud claims that people are more likely to insert their personal identity and emotions into abstractions. He specifically mentions abstract images, but it could also be words that represent the abstract icon. McCloud argues that the power of cartoons-the power of pictures- is both their universality as well as their “amplification through simplification” (McCloud 8). By focusing on a specific detail (amplification) and overlooking the rest (simplification), it makes certain ideas “matter more” (15).

This calls back to Greene’s concept of framing, narrowing in on some aspect and ignoring or leaving out other things. I also recall Kantz’s use of Shirley and Alice as composites or representations of the novice writer and expert. I would consider them “blank slates” as McCloud considers images: they have specific attributes or weaknesses, yet are still abstract enough to be identifiable to readers.

QD

1. I have to say that I am pretty snobby when it comes to cartoons and animated entertainment. Maybe it’s because I’ve recently entered “adulthood” and feel the need to renounce things that I consider immature, but I have mostly written off cartoons. I also have a preference for realism and entertainment in which there is limited suspension of disbelief required of me. I do this even though I have read graphic novels that I adore. McCloud does a great job in arguing that there is nothing unsophisticated about images. The things he discusses- universality, abstraction, identity, and self-awareness- are all very sophisticated topics, topics that adults would be interested in. McCloud would certainly assert that there is no age at which reading comics or watching cartoons would be inappropriate, and after reading this piece, I’d have to agree. I’d honestly never thought about the universality and identity aspects of cartoons, I’d only ever focused on the simplicity.

3. On the one hand, I understand McCloud’s argument that if the messenger has an identity, especially a strong one, it could be distracting. It makes me think of the everyman or everywoman in literature and films- characters with generic qualities to make them more relatable. But on the other hand, I don’t see why cartoons don’t deserve their own depth and density. Just because you read about a character who is completely different from you does not mean you do not consider your own identity or search for other characteristics that still speak to universality or the human condition. I don’t necessarily see the need for readers to insert themselves into blank forms. Then again, I also don’t see faces in things unless I’m told to look for them.

AE

1. I absolutely think teaching strategies should be more visual, and McCloud is a perfect example why. I’m excited for my students to read this (and Berger, though to a lesser extent) because I think they’ll enjoy it much more than the dry pieces they’ve read so far for class. The lessons would be the same as if they had to read written text, although McCloud’s piece wouldn’t have been as effective if it weren’t in the format he wrote it in. It’s not so much the lessons themselves as much as the fact that it would be a different, more exciting delivery system of the concepts they need to know.

3. I’ve kind of said as much, but I think that, at least for me, adults are more interested in complex, realistic characters-flawed, complicated, and human rather than universal. But I’m sure there are cartoons that do have these complex characters. It just seems easier to watch live-action entertainment or read a novel to find realism than it does to do the same with cartoons. And yet, I’ve gotten a lesson out of McCloud’s piece just as I did from Greene’s and Kantz’s pieces.

Final Thoughts

            I really enjoyed McCloud’s piece. He made me consider comics and cartoons in a new way, though I am not entirely convinced. But I think there is something interesting in the fact that, while I remain uninterested in comics/cartoons, this McCloud piece was definitely one of the better readings, and I think my students will definitely agree. So maybe he ultimately proved his theory correct.

Journal for First Week of Teaching

     One of the first things I'm aware of, even after a little more than a week, is how the nervousness and anxiety has not dissipated nearly enough as I'd like it to (or thought that it would). I came in thinking that the first two days would be the hurdles to get over, and then it would gradually get better, but that hasn't been the case.
     Monday went Okay- not worse, not better. I had a lot planned for the first time and had very clear, elaborate instructions and explanations for their assignments and duties (i.e. the grading contract). After a while of explaining various things, I would keep asking them, "Does this makes sense?" "Do you understand this?" and they were adamant that they did. I should have known that of course they could not have possibly absorbed all of that information, because within the next two days, I had numerous emails saying they didn't know how to post their blogs as well as multiple IWAs that were done incorrectly.
     I went into Wednesday with more purpose than I had on Monday. Because they post to the blackboard blog, I was able to read a couple of their reading responses prior to class, and thus, was able to discern which areas or ideas needed more explanation and clarity, and which they understood. I found the IWAs most helpful when the students were honest with me-e.g. "I did not understand framing at all!" or "I'm not sure what the metaphor was." Wednesday was also a little disheartening because, while I thought many students HAD understood the Greene reading quite well, during discussion, it wasn't clear that anyone had even read it. I know they did read it because of their responses, but there is definitely a disconnect between what they say in their blogs and their hesitancy to speak up when I ask similar questions. I can only assume that it is partially the questions I ask, and I'm constantly trying to ask questions that are clear, straight-forward, relevant, and mildly interesting. One good thing that happened on Wednesday was that I think I helped clarify what Project 1 would involve, as they were not familiar with what constructs were (something I hadn't anticipated at all). I think one of the hardest things about teaching is anticipating what are brand new concepts to them, and what they can handle because they're already familiar.
    Friday went better. We had more time for discussion about Kleine, which I wanted because I knew they would probably struggle with this reading (vocab). I was once again disappointed with the discussion. I don't know if that's just how Fridays will go, but they were not even trying towards the last 10 or so minutes. This next week I am going to try to work on having more authority during discussion i.e. make them know that they have to answer the questions that I ask. I didn't think it would bother me, but the silence is definitely uncomfortable, and it's easier for me to rephrase the question or move on than wait, and I have to stop that. One thing I noticed was that nobody raises his or her hand when answering questions. I'm not sure if that is a sign of disrespect/disregard for authority, but I will try to change that this week as well. I'm also going to include more group work to break them up; they're a talkative bunch when they want to be, so maybe straight discussion just isn't the best method for them.