Technology and teaching - this certainly is a topic of debate today, and even more so in the recent past. After reading many of the articles, I had to think about my own ideas concerning classroom computing, emailing, etc.
I never even used computers on a regular basis until I started college. Now students learn to use the computer at home even before kindergarten. I enjoy Moran's pragmatic outlook when he simply states that "computers have altered our landscape" (Moran 204). Yes, the academic atmosphere has changed in ways I never thought possible as a youngster. But are these changes for the good or for the bad? The answer to this question deserves consideration, but most definitely doesn't have an answer. On one hand, technology provides opportunities for us to progress as a civilization through increased informational exchange (not to mention the fact that it's much faster than the pony express). Yet this exchange loses a certain touch of humanity because we no longer see facial expressions or hand writing. We no longer feel the presence of a warm body in the same room where this exchange takes place.
In short, we are bound to experience both pros and cons when we incorporate technology in the classroom. The only way we will truly find what helps or hinders is through experimentation and feedback in our own classrooms.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Diving In
Sharon's blog inspired me to look at Shaughnessy's article called "Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing." Leo Strauss's quote "Always assume that there is one silent student in your class who is by far superior to you in head and in heart" leads us to the core of what it means to "Dive In."
Teachers of basic writing students must reevaluate their own thinking about the teaching and learning process. What do the students need? Why are they in a basic writing skills classroom?
We do not have any easy answers to these questions. Each student will move across the learning spectrum over time, and we certainly don't want to pigeonhole any of them based on preconceived notions. The best way to find out what a student needs is through inquiry and open dialogue.
Teachers must welcome new students as they ride "the tide that brings them into the nation's college classrooms."Both parties need to dive in, get wet, and soak up the rays of knowledge radiating from a mutual relationship based on teaching, learning, and respect.
Teachers of basic writing students must reevaluate their own thinking about the teaching and learning process. What do the students need? Why are they in a basic writing skills classroom?
We do not have any easy answers to these questions. Each student will move across the learning spectrum over time, and we certainly don't want to pigeonhole any of them based on preconceived notions. The best way to find out what a student needs is through inquiry and open dialogue.
Teachers must welcome new students as they ride "the tide that brings them into the nation's college classrooms."Both parties need to dive in, get wet, and soak up the rays of knowledge radiating from a mutual relationship based on teaching, learning, and respect.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Critical Studies
Ann George's article called "Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming of Democracy" invited me to look back on my days as an undergraduate.
I learned a great deal about critical pedagogy through my coursework in educational theory and policy. Specifically, George's commentary on Kozol's "Illiterate America" make me think about the function of public education, and how the history of education might support his argument.
Today, we still see a manifest pattern of upward social mobility among the upper-classes and downward social mobility among the lower-classes. I use upper and lower-classes here to avoid the confusion in our reading based on the oppressed and the oppressor.
How much of an effect does this social mobility have on the quality of education for these groups? Historically, professional education (in a broad sense) was limited to the upper-classes. Still, some of the lower and working-class citizens utilized apprenticeship programs and trades skills in an attempt to travel up the ladder of social mobility.
According to Kozol, and Shor to an extent, these practices remain with us today in primary, secondary, technical schools, and community colleges. Many students are led to believe that hands on practical experience leads to success in the future. This idea generates a few questions worth considering:
1. What is success? Does it mean something different to each person?
2. Do these programs and institutions produce "a large pool of skilled workers for a shrinking number of increasingly deskilled jobs?" (George 95). Is this really the problem, or should we consider the value of these professions in our society at large?
3. What role (if any) does meritocracy play in the educational outcome?
I learned a great deal about critical pedagogy through my coursework in educational theory and policy. Specifically, George's commentary on Kozol's "Illiterate America" make me think about the function of public education, and how the history of education might support his argument.
Today, we still see a manifest pattern of upward social mobility among the upper-classes and downward social mobility among the lower-classes. I use upper and lower-classes here to avoid the confusion in our reading based on the oppressed and the oppressor.
How much of an effect does this social mobility have on the quality of education for these groups? Historically, professional education (in a broad sense) was limited to the upper-classes. Still, some of the lower and working-class citizens utilized apprenticeship programs and trades skills in an attempt to travel up the ladder of social mobility.
According to Kozol, and Shor to an extent, these practices remain with us today in primary, secondary, technical schools, and community colleges. Many students are led to believe that hands on practical experience leads to success in the future. This idea generates a few questions worth considering:
1. What is success? Does it mean something different to each person?
2. Do these programs and institutions produce "a large pool of skilled workers for a shrinking number of increasingly deskilled jobs?" (George 95). Is this really the problem, or should we consider the value of these professions in our society at large?
3. What role (if any) does meritocracy play in the educational outcome?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Cultural Studies and Composition
I've been thinking about the issues surrounding composition and gender since the beginning of the semester when we had to read the Bedford Bibliography piece. I've pondered over a few of the very same issues Nedra Reynolds addresses in the George and Trimbur reading. For the most part, her view of the "all male narrative of cultural studies and composition" holds its own weight when we look at the mainstream discourse in cultural studies.
Historically speaking, the rhetorical accounts of cultures past and present assume, and often emphasize, the male experience. From elementary school to college, we're taught about famous writers, presidents, politicians, inventors, and painters - most of whom happen to be (white) men. Where is the woman's voice? Women of all social statuses deserve recognition and the right to be heard. What about the poor and other minorities? Thankfully, composition and rhetoric scholars seriously considered these questions in the 1980s. They stimulated and spawned various cultural studies including the experiences of many people who never had a chance to take part in the academic dialogue. College classrooms are only in the beginning stages of real cultural exchange, while elementary, middle, and high school students have a long way to go before they experience significant multicultural education.
The Bedford Bibliography supports Reynolds' argument. Noting that multicultural studies only started gaining significant ground in the 1980s when composition scholars studied the cognitive processes of writers, and sought to discover how the writer's social circumstances affected their writing ability. In the long run, researchers opened the door for marginalized groups to raise their voice and be heard through the power of rhetoric.
Historically speaking, the rhetorical accounts of cultures past and present assume, and often emphasize, the male experience. From elementary school to college, we're taught about famous writers, presidents, politicians, inventors, and painters - most of whom happen to be (white) men. Where is the woman's voice? Women of all social statuses deserve recognition and the right to be heard. What about the poor and other minorities? Thankfully, composition and rhetoric scholars seriously considered these questions in the 1980s. They stimulated and spawned various cultural studies including the experiences of many people who never had a chance to take part in the academic dialogue. College classrooms are only in the beginning stages of real cultural exchange, while elementary, middle, and high school students have a long way to go before they experience significant multicultural education.
The Bedford Bibliography supports Reynolds' argument. Noting that multicultural studies only started gaining significant ground in the 1980s when composition scholars studied the cognitive processes of writers, and sought to discover how the writer's social circumstances affected their writing ability. In the long run, researchers opened the door for marginalized groups to raise their voice and be heard through the power of rhetoric.
Class Activity With Jessica and Ray
This is in response to Jessica and Ray's activity at the beginning of class last week.
Without any hesitation, I started writing about what I desire - simple enough. I didn't consider writing about the definition of desire or what it means to me. I didn't feel any pressure at all to write during the first half of the activity, and I enjoyed having the freedom to write about the way I feel.
The second half of the activity, however, was a different story. I looked at the quote and thought, "what does this mean?"Between the confusion and having a time constraint, I just randomly took words from the quote and tried to create a meaning out of different thoughts going through my mind.
I didn't know what to think about my writing until Julie raised the question, "what is our task assignment?" Both parts of the activity no doubt encouraged us to write, and both resulted in different writing styles. Still, I think it's important to note that I would have written a completely different response to both parts of the activity if I had a specific assignment. For example, the leaders might ask, "what does desire mean to you?" or "what is the meaning behind this quote?" I didn't know our task assignment (not to say that we had or needed one in particular), so I just wrote about anything that came to mind.
Great activity, Jessica and Ray =~) You really made me think about some important issues in composition and teaching.
Without any hesitation, I started writing about what I desire - simple enough. I didn't consider writing about the definition of desire or what it means to me. I didn't feel any pressure at all to write during the first half of the activity, and I enjoyed having the freedom to write about the way I feel.
The second half of the activity, however, was a different story. I looked at the quote and thought, "what does this mean?"Between the confusion and having a time constraint, I just randomly took words from the quote and tried to create a meaning out of different thoughts going through my mind.
I didn't know what to think about my writing until Julie raised the question, "what is our task assignment?" Both parts of the activity no doubt encouraged us to write, and both resulted in different writing styles. Still, I think it's important to note that I would have written a completely different response to both parts of the activity if I had a specific assignment. For example, the leaders might ask, "what does desire mean to you?" or "what is the meaning behind this quote?" I didn't know our task assignment (not to say that we had or needed one in particular), so I just wrote about anything that came to mind.
Great activity, Jessica and Ray =~) You really made me think about some important issues in composition and teaching.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Elbow, Emig, et al. continued
Elbow and Emig both discuss the important connections among talking, writing, and learning. Elbow's evidence supports the connections between writing and talking, while Emig focuses on writing as a learning mechanism. However, I think it's important to find a common ground between Elbow and Emig's arguments. This is most obvious in their discussion about talking.
Both authors emphasize the fact that talking is an important part of the writing process. I really wish my composition teacher would have encouraged us to use speech when formulating ideas for further inquiry. Emig points out that "talking is a valuable, even necessary, form of prewriting" (Emig 8). Likewise, Elbow suggests talking as a way to go from no words to words. Sometimes the most natural, organic solutions to writer's block seem beyond our grasp. But we only need to strike up a conversation to get the prewriting juices flowing!
Both authors emphasize the fact that talking is an important part of the writing process. I really wish my composition teacher would have encouraged us to use speech when formulating ideas for further inquiry. Emig points out that "talking is a valuable, even necessary, form of prewriting" (Emig 8). Likewise, Elbow suggests talking as a way to go from no words to words. Sometimes the most natural, organic solutions to writer's block seem beyond our grasp. But we only need to strike up a conversation to get the prewriting juices flowing!
Elbow, Emig, et al.
Elbow's discussion about felt sense made me think about something I experienced last Monday in another class. I felt as if my idea didn't come out quite the way I had anticipated. Consequently, I turned to the lady next to me and attempted to explain myself. I'm not sure if my experience was necessarily felt sense or a bad case of confusion. I might avoid these problems next time by pausing to make sense of my nonverbal knowledge before commenting. In the future, I can pass this information down to my students, and teach them how to monitor their own "internal standard of how well their words reflect their insight" (Elbow 16).
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing
This was a very interesting article. I previewed the article before I read it and thought that I might not enjoy a discussion about literary and nonliterary discourses. However, upon completion I felt very enlightened and armed with new knowledge about the composition theories presented in Britton's article.
I really enjoyed James Britton's commentary on Harding's discussion about the way students "do" literature when they participate in it during the day. Later they become spectators when they recount the gossip (156). How fascinating! I've never really thought about gossip on such an intellectual level since I read a book called 'Main Street' by Sinclair Lewis. I read this book quite some time ago, and subsequently wrote a critical analysis about the institution of gossip among the middle class. "Main Street" was published just prior to Harding's book covering the same topic. We can make connections between fiction (literary) and gossip (nonliterary) through a consideration of readings from the past!
I really enjoyed James Britton's commentary on Harding's discussion about the way students "do" literature when they participate in it during the day. Later they become spectators when they recount the gossip (156). How fascinating! I've never really thought about gossip on such an intellectual level since I read a book called 'Main Street' by Sinclair Lewis. I read this book quite some time ago, and subsequently wrote a critical analysis about the institution of gossip among the middle class. "Main Street" was published just prior to Harding's book covering the same topic. We can make connections between fiction (literary) and gossip (nonliterary) through a consideration of readings from the past!
Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar
Interestingly enough, I enjoyed Britton's article more than Hartwell's long-winded article concerning grammar. I suppose I like to remain neutral in the face of academic debate, but at the same time some academics might say that I'm not an academic at all unless I take a firm stand on issues such as those presented in our readings. Either way, I'll continue to consider these debates with an open mind.
I've always been interested in grammar, spelling, and how the cultural collisions of time's past formed our extraordinary language. As such, I don't understand why grammar is not a very "interesting area of inquiry" according to Hartwell (228). Why did he write this article in the first place if it's not an interesting topic? His research certainly moved me to think about the issues behind the teaching of grammar, and it certainly didn't encourage me to "move on"(228). He makes many valid points throughout his discussion, but his message seems to be contradictory in nature. He fails to present a refined argument based on solid (up-to-date) facts. For example, he presents us with a study (from1976) about high school students in New Zealand and attempts to support his arguments based on its outcomes. Finally, his use of Grammar 1, Grammar 2, etc., is redundant and confusing at the least.
Hartwell's article is very useful, but his argument is not very convincing.
I've always been interested in grammar, spelling, and how the cultural collisions of time's past formed our extraordinary language. As such, I don't understand why grammar is not a very "interesting area of inquiry" according to Hartwell (228). Why did he write this article in the first place if it's not an interesting topic? His research certainly moved me to think about the issues behind the teaching of grammar, and it certainly didn't encourage me to "move on"(228). He makes many valid points throughout his discussion, but his message seems to be contradictory in nature. He fails to present a refined argument based on solid (up-to-date) facts. For example, he presents us with a study (from1976) about high school students in New Zealand and attempts to support his arguments based on its outcomes. Finally, his use of Grammar 1, Grammar 2, etc., is redundant and confusing at the least.
Hartwell's article is very useful, but his argument is not very convincing.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Contemporary Composition
While attempting to make connections among our readings, I noticed a few interesting points worthy of discussion in James A. Berlin's "Contemporary Composition" and "The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing."During his discussion about new logic, Berlin references George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric. Here, Campbell describes how the relationship between language and thought "are made to correspond, and the qualities of one exactly to cooperate with those of the other" (Berlin 206). These thoughts almost directly tie in with Bedford's discussion about the debate between traditional scholars and scholars of rhetoric. The former building their argument on the assumption that "one first finds knowledge and then puts it into words," while the latter argues that "knowledge is actually created by words" (Bedford Bibliography).
I can make sense out of both arguments, but agree with Campbell's idea that language and thought must work together. As such, both traditional scholars and historians of rhetoric might find common ground by meeting in the middle of both arguments. We might agree with both sides to avoid this ongoing academic debate but, in all honesty, the only way to peace is by finding some form of common ground. Certainly we need knowledge to put something into words and, further, attain a different kind of knowledge through the creation of words. Perhaps a lot of this debate has to do with semantics?
I can make sense out of both arguments, but agree with Campbell's idea that language and thought must work together. As such, both traditional scholars and historians of rhetoric might find common ground by meeting in the middle of both arguments. We might agree with both sides to avoid this ongoing academic debate but, in all honesty, the only way to peace is by finding some form of common ground. Certainly we need knowledge to put something into words and, further, attain a different kind of knowledge through the creation of words. Perhaps a lot of this debate has to do with semantics?
History of Rhetoric and Composition
I'm not sure if we are required to post a blog about the "brief" history of rhetoric, but I figured it wouldn't hurt in any case. I would like to quickly consider the social and historical approaches to rhetoric and their exclusion of women's issues throughout history. As the article points out, in the 1980s "composition scholars focused on the social nature of writing" (The Bedford Bibliography). Finally we see a time when rhetoricians gave a voice to many groups previously excluded from the mainstream discourse. For many years the voices of women remained silent as academics focused on traditional facts and their "ability" to preserve our nation's history. Now, however, women's studies and gender studies discourses break the silence about inequalities between (and among) the genders, while challenging gender bias in the English language and in the field of composition studies.
The Basic Aims of Discourse
James L. Kinneavy discusses "affective fallacy" under the section of reading called "The Determination of the Aims of Discourse" (Kinneavy 130). I couldn't agree more with the idea that we must avoid making the assumption that "what the author says he is trying to do is actually what the work really accomplishes" (130). Certainly as readers, we all process information differently when we attempt to make sense of it through the use of our own prior knowledge. Our reactions might vary to the point that one reader's understanding of the basic aims of a particular discourse might completely disagree with what the author is trying to accomplish. Still, while we must consider the importance and relevance of the readers' reactions, we also need to keep in mind that they should not be the only focus of analysis when determining the basic aims of discourse. Instead, we should use the readers' reactions as "markers that can point to significant evidence in the discourse" (131).
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Why Chicken and Mushrooms?
This blog is called chicken and mushrooms for a very simple reason. I had so many things on my mind while preparing for the spring semester, including what to have for dinner. One night I found an appetizing recipe for chicken and mushrooms as I was filing through my recipe cards. Consequently, I decided to kill two birds with one stone by using the name of the recipe for my blog. No, I'm not trying to be droll or make an inside joke. The title of my blog was inspired by a dinner recipe. Now it's time to take my creativity out of the kitchen and use it when commenting on our course readings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)