The Nystrand article might be one of the longer ones we’ve read, but I appreciated seeing transcripts of the three class discussions. These types of examples help me situate the concepts we read about. I realize teaching may not come with a “how to” guide, but these examples make me more aware of what types of practices and mindsets to avoid.
Seeing the conversations in print enabled me to really understand the difference between recitation and true discussion, or monologic and dialogic lessons. Lindsay and Turner’s classes were clearly more collaborative and engaging. The discussions were driven by the students’ comments and responses, unlike Schmidt’s class. Schmidt’s students also seemed very tentative—like they were searching for a “right” answer. One student, Mary, didn’t add any additional comments after her first response was dismissed. So, it’s easy to see how some conscious role-reversal, directed questions, encouragement, and flexibility can promote some active thoughts and interesting discussions.
And saying simply “Good idea” isn’t a good idea. According to Nystrand’s description of “high-level evaluation,” productive evaluation also involves elaboration or a follow-up question (21). I think we all probably do this to some extent in our everyday conversations, particularly with people we don’t know: someone makes a statement, and then to keep the conversation going, you respond and ask another question. It makes sense, and Lindsay and Turner’s classes do resemble conversations more than question-and-answer sessions.
I also found it interesting that, as Nystrand mentions, teachers have traditionally promoted the autonomy of texts by “eschewing references to both the writer (I) and the reader (you)” (13). I’m sure we’ve all had those types of teachers--I remember struggling over whether or not to use “I” in my 101 papers. Although I suppose there are appropriate venues for third person, it’s strange that there is that some teachers promote that kind of disconnect—that kind of distance—between writer and text. Teaching new college students to remove themselves from their words undermines the fundamental goals of composition courses.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Internet and Learning
Internet and the Classroom
Blackmon's article made me seriously consider the use of the Internet in the classroom for the first time. While I'm comfortable with computers and technology, I never really considered how strong an academic tool they can really be. Up until now, I have really not been exposed to technology in the classroom that much. I know that it will be much different for the next generation of college students. The world is shifting its focus from the printed word, to the "virtual" word, and so we must ponder what things like the World Wide Web can and can't do for students.
The first question we need to ponder is, is the Internet really an equal space for all ethnic and socioeconomic groups? The answer is, of course not. As many black students in Blackmon's class explained, the internet, just as the outside world often offers a prejudiced, one-sided view of different ethnic groups. The internet is a "white" space. Everyone is seemingly free to post to it, but it is still "run" by white men in many ways. This problem offers an interesting opportunity though. As Blackmon does, it is good to make students aware of this prejudiced view on the internet. It is good to help them realize what they can do to combat this problem. Firstly, they can work to more clearly define their true identities, outside what the internet says they should be. Secondly, they can become more avid and prolific internet users and writers, who can attempt to combat the bias.
Now, there is the problem of how the internet is not an equal space for people of all different socioeconomic groups. Having come from a middle class school, I had ample access to computers and technology in high school. But students, who go to poorer schools, often do not. This puts them at a great disadvantage when they come to college and are asked to work on the internet and on computers in general. Exposing ALL students to technology, and helping to make it accessible to them, is imperative if we want our students to succeed in this world. Everything is moving toward technology. The question remains though, how do you catch those students up who start off behind? And, how do you not keep perpetuating the gap? Meaning, how can you slow the progress of those who come in with more knowledge enough for the rest of the students to catch up?
The internet, as Blackmon suggests can make students "more critically aware and socially conscious individuals" (98) If we push students as Blackmon does to read the internet as a text, and to critically read it, then they can begin to see how what they read on it affects them. Without this know how, the internet can be dangerous, negatively affecting the identities of those in ethnic groups and maintaining the status quo.
Blackmon's article made me seriously consider the use of the Internet in the classroom for the first time. While I'm comfortable with computers and technology, I never really considered how strong an academic tool they can really be. Up until now, I have really not been exposed to technology in the classroom that much. I know that it will be much different for the next generation of college students. The world is shifting its focus from the printed word, to the "virtual" word, and so we must ponder what things like the World Wide Web can and can't do for students.
The first question we need to ponder is, is the Internet really an equal space for all ethnic and socioeconomic groups? The answer is, of course not. As many black students in Blackmon's class explained, the internet, just as the outside world often offers a prejudiced, one-sided view of different ethnic groups. The internet is a "white" space. Everyone is seemingly free to post to it, but it is still "run" by white men in many ways. This problem offers an interesting opportunity though. As Blackmon does, it is good to make students aware of this prejudiced view on the internet. It is good to help them realize what they can do to combat this problem. Firstly, they can work to more clearly define their true identities, outside what the internet says they should be. Secondly, they can become more avid and prolific internet users and writers, who can attempt to combat the bias.
Now, there is the problem of how the internet is not an equal space for people of all different socioeconomic groups. Having come from a middle class school, I had ample access to computers and technology in high school. But students, who go to poorer schools, often do not. This puts them at a great disadvantage when they come to college and are asked to work on the internet and on computers in general. Exposing ALL students to technology, and helping to make it accessible to them, is imperative if we want our students to succeed in this world. Everything is moving toward technology. The question remains though, how do you catch those students up who start off behind? And, how do you not keep perpetuating the gap? Meaning, how can you slow the progress of those who come in with more knowledge enough for the rest of the students to catch up?
The internet, as Blackmon suggests can make students "more critically aware and socially conscious individuals" (98) If we push students as Blackmon does to read the internet as a text, and to critically read it, then they can begin to see how what they read on it affects them. Without this know how, the internet can be dangerous, negatively affecting the identities of those in ethnic groups and maintaining the status quo.
Monday, September 17, 2007
comedy, satire, subversion and smart-assery in the classroom
Today’s discussion got me thinking about this very topic. Namely, what is the place for comedic writing/satire (I wish there was a catch-all term for this) in the classroom? I apologize ahead of time for the amount of times I may bring up this topic; it’s not only a personal interest of mine, it’s also something that I do (which gives this post the benefit of being self-serving as well).
Here’s the problem: most students are going to walk into composition classes with preconceived notions of writing. And since reading is not the number one entertainment choice for 18 and 19 year-olds today, we can assume that their take on writing (and the reading of said writing) is that – for the most part – it’s a formal, serious and studious past-time. But if students look at contemporary examples of comedic writing and satire (which I will provide below), they should be able to see the different roles and purposes of writing. These works can also convince students that they can make intelligent, well-written arguments in a voices not far removed from their own. And, shockingly, the work they produce may actually be entertaining!
Satire is another one of my interests, and is a subject that I don’t think enough emphasis is placed upon in education. If you look at popular entertainment, most comedic shows have some kind of satirical element. South Park, though the messages the show delivers may be handled poorly at times, operates almost entirely at a satirical and allegorical level that stands in opposition to the potty humor the series is famous for. The Colbert Report, another show on Comedy Central, is a satirical onion with many layers: Stephen Colbert plays a character named Stephen Colbert who is a parody of Bill O’ Reilly. You have to walk into the show with some sort of knowledge of satire, or face total confusion. Students can obviously parse the messages of these programs, but are often dumbfounded when they face satire in writing. As a writer of satire, I find myself having to explain my position often to those who just don’t get it.
I think a satire-writing exercise would be a good and challenging project. It’s kind of like writing an argument backwards: you look up the opposing points and present them as your own in an attempt to discredit them. Though this may seem daunting to many, students are more than familiar with satire through their entertainment. I think they just need to get to know the mechanics.
Comedic writing and satire are fun for me because I can make arguments that are wildly expressive and funny, but still intelligent. I think breaking the wall of formality most students are stuck behind (sorry for the bad metaphor) will get them to be more expressive and get them to develop their voices as writers. This approach can even get students to work through their problems with the class or with anything through criticism; as one of the teachers in Durst’s examples stated to a student, “You may not like this, but I challenge you to tell me why.”
Here are some good examples of comedic writing and satire that can be used in the classroom. I have many more examples, but here are the best ones:
America: The Book - Pure, brilliant satire.
The Areas of My Expertise - High-concept comedic writing.
Mike Nelson's Mind Over Matters - Great comedic essays.
Barrel Fever - Fantastic satire by David Sedaris (which he has sadly dropped for autobiographical essays).
Your Movie Sucks - Scathing, hilarious and intelligent movie reviews by Roger Ebert.
The Onion - A given, and a great example of parody and satire.
Something Awful - A great, subversive, high-concept comedy website. I happen to write for them, which is where the self-promotion comes in.
Any comments or feedback may justify all the time I spent writing this post.
Here’s the problem: most students are going to walk into composition classes with preconceived notions of writing. And since reading is not the number one entertainment choice for 18 and 19 year-olds today, we can assume that their take on writing (and the reading of said writing) is that – for the most part – it’s a formal, serious and studious past-time. But if students look at contemporary examples of comedic writing and satire (which I will provide below), they should be able to see the different roles and purposes of writing. These works can also convince students that they can make intelligent, well-written arguments in a voices not far removed from their own. And, shockingly, the work they produce may actually be entertaining!
Satire is another one of my interests, and is a subject that I don’t think enough emphasis is placed upon in education. If you look at popular entertainment, most comedic shows have some kind of satirical element. South Park, though the messages the show delivers may be handled poorly at times, operates almost entirely at a satirical and allegorical level that stands in opposition to the potty humor the series is famous for. The Colbert Report, another show on Comedy Central, is a satirical onion with many layers: Stephen Colbert plays a character named Stephen Colbert who is a parody of Bill O’ Reilly. You have to walk into the show with some sort of knowledge of satire, or face total confusion. Students can obviously parse the messages of these programs, but are often dumbfounded when they face satire in writing. As a writer of satire, I find myself having to explain my position often to those who just don’t get it.
I think a satire-writing exercise would be a good and challenging project. It’s kind of like writing an argument backwards: you look up the opposing points and present them as your own in an attempt to discredit them. Though this may seem daunting to many, students are more than familiar with satire through their entertainment. I think they just need to get to know the mechanics.
Comedic writing and satire are fun for me because I can make arguments that are wildly expressive and funny, but still intelligent. I think breaking the wall of formality most students are stuck behind (sorry for the bad metaphor) will get them to be more expressive and get them to develop their voices as writers. This approach can even get students to work through their problems with the class or with anything through criticism; as one of the teachers in Durst’s examples stated to a student, “You may not like this, but I challenge you to tell me why.”
Here are some good examples of comedic writing and satire that can be used in the classroom. I have many more examples, but here are the best ones:
America: The Book - Pure, brilliant satire.
The Areas of My Expertise - High-concept comedic writing.
Mike Nelson's Mind Over Matters - Great comedic essays.
Barrel Fever - Fantastic satire by David Sedaris (which he has sadly dropped for autobiographical essays).
Your Movie Sucks - Scathing, hilarious and intelligent movie reviews by Roger Ebert.
The Onion - A given, and a great example of parody and satire.
Something Awful - A great, subversive, high-concept comedy website. I happen to write for them, which is where the self-promotion comes in.
Any comments or feedback may justify all the time I spent writing this post.
something to ponder
I came across this in reading for my other class:
"In 1991, Howard Gardner, a leading cognitive psychologist, diagnosed the problem with today's students and the solution to the problem in what had by then become canonical terms. The problem, as Gardner saw it, was that education does not remove or correct people's everyday 'folk theories.' People readily fall back on these folk theories even when they have been, or are being, exposed in school to 'correct' or, at least, 'better' disiplinary-based theories. Only people who 'really' understand these disiplinary theories, Gardner argued, can avoid this..." James Paul Gee, "New People in New Worlds: Networks, the New Capitalism, and Schools."from Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Routledge Press, 2000.
There's some research involving this dynamic with new teachers which finds the same - that within a year, sometimes even months, new teachers will fall back on folk theories (which often contradict disiplinary based theory and research) to guide them as teachers. Only those who really understand or get the theories and embrace them with some enthusiasm are likely to resist the pull of commonsense notions of teaching and learning, such research has suggested. (it's why Hillocks warns that new teachers should avoid the teacher's lounge).
pam
"In 1991, Howard Gardner, a leading cognitive psychologist, diagnosed the problem with today's students and the solution to the problem in what had by then become canonical terms. The problem, as Gardner saw it, was that education does not remove or correct people's everyday 'folk theories.' People readily fall back on these folk theories even when they have been, or are being, exposed in school to 'correct' or, at least, 'better' disiplinary-based theories. Only people who 'really' understand these disiplinary theories, Gardner argued, can avoid this..." James Paul Gee, "New People in New Worlds: Networks, the New Capitalism, and Schools."from Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Routledge Press, 2000.
There's some research involving this dynamic with new teachers which finds the same - that within a year, sometimes even months, new teachers will fall back on folk theories (which often contradict disiplinary based theory and research) to guide them as teachers. Only those who really understand or get the theories and embrace them with some enthusiasm are likely to resist the pull of commonsense notions of teaching and learning, such research has suggested. (it's why Hillocks warns that new teachers should avoid the teacher's lounge).
pam
Sunday, September 16, 2007
September 17th, readings...
The Robert Brooke Article
Brooke's article about the underlife of composition classes was interesting. I like to see composition articles that combine their findings with findings of other disciplines. I found it intriguing that students’ conversations in the classroom are actually often directly related to what is happening in the classroom. I guess I assumed that students spent their time discussing parties and relationships, when the teacher wasn't looking. It makes sense though that students want to assert their identities outside of the ones they are given in the classroom. No one wants to be cast out of a strict mold. We don't want to be strictly students. We want to be artists, friends, family members, etc..
Brooke states that the number one type of conversation that students have in the classroom is conversations that "find creative uses for classroom activities and materials" (144). They apply what they are learning to their own lives. Teachers often find this behavior to be distracting to the goals of the class, but I think they are wrong. As we have read in several other articles, students want to know how what they are learning applies to their own lives. When they have this context, they are far more likely to be receptive and engaged in the classroom. As teachers, we need to always strive to provide the "why" for our students. We need to make them see how our lessons apply to their every day lives.
I found it interesting that students think of their classroom time as gameplay. They see themselves as almost gaining and losing "virtual" points. I don't know if this way of thinking is necessarily helpful or conducive to learning. I don't think students should think of themselves as in contest with the teacher. I am not sure what can be done to remedy this, however. Even when teachers attempt to assure students that the main goal of the classroom is learning, not the attainment of high grades, students rarely believe them. From kindergarten, they are taught to think of school as a contest, a game.
It is funny that Brooke calls the underlife of teachers the disruptive kind. But, it is true. Teachers, especially composition teachers, tend to stray from what the education system deems "proper" teaching. They strive to lo make students individual thinkers. And to be honest, this bucks the system! Both students and teachers are concerned with the identity of the student. Students try to distance themselves from the traditional role of teacher, and teachers try to get them to do the same.
Very interesting.
Brooke's article about the underlife of composition classes was interesting. I like to see composition articles that combine their findings with findings of other disciplines. I found it intriguing that students’ conversations in the classroom are actually often directly related to what is happening in the classroom. I guess I assumed that students spent their time discussing parties and relationships, when the teacher wasn't looking. It makes sense though that students want to assert their identities outside of the ones they are given in the classroom. No one wants to be cast out of a strict mold. We don't want to be strictly students. We want to be artists, friends, family members, etc..
Brooke states that the number one type of conversation that students have in the classroom is conversations that "find creative uses for classroom activities and materials" (144). They apply what they are learning to their own lives. Teachers often find this behavior to be distracting to the goals of the class, but I think they are wrong. As we have read in several other articles, students want to know how what they are learning applies to their own lives. When they have this context, they are far more likely to be receptive and engaged in the classroom. As teachers, we need to always strive to provide the "why" for our students. We need to make them see how our lessons apply to their every day lives.
I found it interesting that students think of their classroom time as gameplay. They see themselves as almost gaining and losing "virtual" points. I don't know if this way of thinking is necessarily helpful or conducive to learning. I don't think students should think of themselves as in contest with the teacher. I am not sure what can be done to remedy this, however. Even when teachers attempt to assure students that the main goal of the classroom is learning, not the attainment of high grades, students rarely believe them. From kindergarten, they are taught to think of school as a contest, a game.
It is funny that Brooke calls the underlife of teachers the disruptive kind. But, it is true. Teachers, especially composition teachers, tend to stray from what the education system deems "proper" teaching. They strive to lo make students individual thinkers. And to be honest, this bucks the system! Both students and teachers are concerned with the identity of the student. Students try to distance themselves from the traditional role of teacher, and teachers try to get them to do the same.
Very interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)