Oh, Silly Mankind

I was very interested in Eagleton's comments about the difference between our ability to change culture and Nature. He clearly demonstrates how unwilling we are to alter our culture. We, as a people, have seemingly had more luck changing the fabric of the world around us than we have had in making changes to the culture in which we live. He claims that,

It has proved a lot easier to level mountains than to change patriarchal values. Cloning sheep is child’s play compared to persuading chauvinists out of their prejudices. Cultural beliefs, not least the fundamentalist variety which are bound up with fears for one’s identity, are far harder to uproot than forests (50).

Eagleton believes, and I would tend to agree, that we are more likely to try to completely reorder the world around us than admit that we as individuals need to change who we are or what we believe. We are more willing to destroy those who disagree with us than to change our own perspective. Rather than attempting to see the world as it is, we try to reshape it in the fashion that we believe it should exist. We have no problem spending piles of money and years of effort to find a solution to a problem that could easily be resolved by slightly altering what we believe to be true.

The Others

I am very interested in the idea of the Other. It seems to me that this is one of the central issues in the field of queer and lesbian theory. I am not sure if this need to define who we are by who we are not is something that is inherent in our genes or if it is a social construct that has become so ingrained in our culture as human beings that it only seems to have been ever-present. This is by no means an attempt to make an excuse for the behavior that would exclude those who are different. We need the other in order to survive. There must be diversity in a species in order for it to thrive. By trying to deny the Other, or by trying to make it seem inferior, those in control only doom themselves. One way or another, as history has shown us, those who are pushed to the side because they are different from those with the power will find a way to be heard and eventually reckoned with. We can only exclude the Other as long as they remain unaware of the strength they possess. Once the illusion of the status quo is longer able to hold back the tide, they will come crashing down upon “Us” with a vengeance. The Other is not some subculture who need us to survive. Without the Other, we are only a group of different “Others” that could just as easily be pushed aside if we are deemed unworthy.

Just Call Me Linus

I was very interested in the ideas behind New Historicism. It seems to me that this is one of the more logical theories that we have looked at. It is not concerned with identifying the intention of the author being examined, but rather the relations between the literary texts of a time period on those texts that are seen as not having a valued literary merit. This makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t believe that you can ever separate a text from its context, and the introduction of the idea of the co-text takes that a step further. We can never truly understand an author’s intention, even an author writing within our own time period. It seems like a futile exercise to try and find meaning only in the words of a piece of literature. It makes more sense that we would try to create a network of written record from a given time period in order to identify the larger world of the text. The use of non-fiction pieces of literature can provide a different perspective on a literary work. By incorporating different genres of literature, theorists can provide a far-reaching lens with which to view a primary text. Of course, there is the questions of which pieces are used to create this lens. There is always going to be a bias brought to a piece when individuals are allowed to choose the particular stance from which to view it. The co-texts can be chosen in order to support one view over another. The fact that theorists use individual passages from texts in order to illustrate a particular point only adds to this sense of bias. It seems to me though, that all of the theories we have explored this far have at least some level of bias integrated into them. It is just a matter of finding the bias you are comfortable with and making it your own. I feel pretty comfortable with slanted lens. I may have found my theory security blanket.

Dang It! I am the Man

I was particularly taken by Bourdieu’s thoughts on the role of the education system, and by extension, the roles of teachers in the development of “legitimate” language. I have never seen myself in this role before. According to Bourdieu, I am just another cog in the machine of the dominant culture. The problem is, I don’t know if I can argue with that. While I do strive to teach my students how to think for themselves and try to give them the skills to see the world for themselves, I limit them in the ways that they can express these thoughts and views. I expect them all to write, and speak about their ideas in standard English. By doing this, I limit the ways that they can truly understand the world. I have become, without being fully aware of the transition, a “teacher of thinking” (49). In my attempts to create a standard for my student’s communication, I have pushed them to, “see and feel things in the same way” (49). The only justification that I can offer is that these students will need to be able to speak, read and write in the dominant language in order to succeed in the world. In my attempt to prepare my students to gain an advantage in the world, I have actually done my part to continue a system set against the majority of them. I am not helping them grow up and change the world, I am programming them to accept the world as it is. Every time I dismiss their most comfortable modes of communication as, “slang and gibberish, “ (49) I push them one step closer to conforming with the rest of the culture. Suck!

There is No Spoon

Eagleton’s discussion of what is ‘real’ was very interesting. It made me think of the discussion that I have had every time I introduce the idea of realism to a literature class. The students are unable to distinguish between realism and truth. They assume that if a story is labeled as realism that means that it is actually a work of nonfiction. Eagleton would suggest that this mistake is often made with just about every type of literature out there. He claims that we cannot mistake fiction as a means of “imaginatively transposing the real,” but rather as “the production of certain produced representations of the real into an imaginary object” (173). We often hear that literature is a way for us to see and understand the world. Eagleton would disagree in the sense that literature does not show us some insight into what is real through a fictional medium. He would say instead, at least in the fictional conversation that I had with him in my head, that literature provides a way for us to see the products that come from the various representations that we call the ‘real’ world. Through varying degrees, literature can present us with an imaginary setting that is similar to, but never the same as our world. The degree of ‘reality’ is based on the work’s focus on the imagined representation or on the ways that the real signifies itself.

Take Off the Glasses, It's Dark Out

Jameson seems to take the argument away from anyone who would claim that Marxist, or any other theory with the exception of new Criticism, is just a bunch of hooey. I often hear people try to discredit theory by saying that it is just for those with too much time on their hands. They claim that all of these theories just serve to confuse the average reader. They muddy up the “straightforward” close readings of New Criticism, or just reading the text, by reading too much into the context and the structures surrounding the text. The “elaborate and ingenious interpretations” are too much for them to handle. Jameson would say to them that there is no such thing as a close reading that is completely free from any outside influence on the reader. Every reader who picks up a text and reads it is doing so with a lens that has been developed through centuries of struggle between any number of forces. Through mystification, most readers have been blinded to the very existence of this lens. Without even realizing it, most people will live their whole life looking at the world with a tinted and skewed vision of the way things are. This lens is kept in place through the ignorance of the masses. If there was no mystification, ”then no ideology would be possible, and no domination either.” As long as the majority of a given population believes that literature is just words and their culture is” the way it has always been,” then there can be no change. You need to know that you are wearing the sunglasses before you can even begin to try and take them off.

In This Corner....

Foucault seems to be setting himself up for a theoretical throw down. He uses his discussion of the genealogies, or subjugated knowledges, to establish his starting point. His claim that these knowledges have been repressed by “globalizing discourses” serves as the focal point of his argument. The strictly scientific and systematisizing knowledges that had become the leading forms of theory, had pushed aside all other forms of knowledge and understanding. Foucault does not seem to make the claim that these theories are evil in nature. He does not rise up and call for their annihilation. He is searching for a way to examine these theories and bring light to the effects that they have on the societies in which they have gained so much power. He is not trying to limit the number of ways that we can understand the world, but rather, open up our thinking to some approaches and understandings which have been swept under the rug.

The Theoretical Sacagawe

After our discussion on Tuesday, I continued to think about what the role of the literary critic is. I think his job, above all else, is to simply open the field of literature to as many different interpretations as possible. The critic is the one who shows the everyday, average reader how to interact with a text in a manner that suits her needs and interests. The critic is responsible for taking theory from the moment to the hour (1). The critic provides new approaches to engaging a text which can be followed by readers who share an intellectual ability, social concerns, and outlook on life. The great variety of theories that are used to interact with texts provide readers a chance to find a relationship with literature that “fits” for him. Nothing shows this more clearly than the variation between modernism and postmodernism. As Barry explains, the basic approaches in both of these fields are the same. The key difference, or at least the one he emphasizes, is the reader’s outlook on the fragmentation that they seek to uncover. If the reader sees the fragmented nature of the world and wishes for “the good old days” of unity and cohesion, she is a modernist. If that same reader sees the disjunction in a text and embraces with a sense of freedom and revelry, she is a postmodernist. Critics are the ones who blaze the trails that give the rest of us these options.

Look at the Cute Little Theories

As I was completing this first reading in Barry, I was continually amazed to see just how new these theories of criticism are. There is such a strong contrast between the age of the Greek and Roman rhetoric that we began with and the newer forms of literary criticism that it makes them seem like infants in the world of thinking. Even the oldest of these forms, the new or practical criticism, is under 100 years old. I have studied these theories before, but never in the context of the ancient origins. When we consider theories like Marxism or feminism, it is easy for us just to assume that these methods of seeing the world have always been around. They don’t seem like the recent developments that they really are. It has put into perspective what will follow in this course. It has also piqued my own interest in what will be coming soon in the world of literary theory. If we have seen so many developments in the last 30 years, what can we expect next? It seems to be taking less time for new theories to be introduced and then accepted into the ‘hour’ of theory.

Oh, Now I See It.

I think that Augustine makes a very interesting statement in the opening paragraph of the first excerpt. He says that discussions of Scripture require to posses the, “means of discovering what the thought may be, and the means of expressing what the thought is” (4.1). I think that he makes a very clear distinction here that will be important as we begin to move from these ancient theorists into the more modern realm of literary theory. Augustine claims that the first step to discussing the Scriptures (literature) is the ability to discover what the thought might be. He does not say that you must find a truth within the texts. He does not even suggest that there is only one possibility for what the text is saying. He leaves it open to a number of readings. The key is that the reader has the means to discover some thought within the text. His second point is that the reader must be able to not only discover the thought, but must also be able express that thought. This seems to be the basis for literary theory. The theorists must be able to find a thought within a text and then tell his reader/ listener what that thought is, and how the text supports it. We are no longer looking for Plato’s single truth, or even the words of a “good man.” We are using a text to discover a thought and then discussing that thought. Welcome to lit theory.

In It For the Rhetorical Benjamins?

I was amazed to see how many of the Renaissance rhetoricians seemed to be motivated, either partially or entirely, by the money that could be gained from their innovations in the field. While this was at least a factor for the earlier rhetoricians, the lack of mass production limited their financial reimbursements to what they obtained from their tutoring. The printing press seemed to feed a boom in new rhetorical theories. Everyone who had any background in the works of the Greeks seems to have stepped up and tried his hand at revising what they had written centuries before. It seems to have been easier for the first members of this group to succeed. They had novelty on their side. When they would stumble upon the remainder of some long-lost manuscript, it offered them the chance to make a name for themselves. It was also easier for them to present these ideas as their own, not that there was any real ethical argument against plagiarism at the time. From here it was a question of trying to develop your own take on the same material. These scholars would find any way possible to reiterate, reorder, retranslate, and package rhetoric in order to find a new way to present it to a growing audience. Then they would issue a new edition a few years later in order remind people of their importance. Some of these editions had only minimal changes - a few Catholic jokes added on behalf of the Protestants. And thus, the textbook industry was born.

I Blame Cicero

I am not sure what to think about the readings from Matsen. As I read through the sections of these ancient texts, I was impressed at how thorough these men were when it came to discussing their field. The long lists of different types of style, different purposes for speaking, ways to adapt to the audience all seemed to be a great resource for young students. As I think about it a little bit more though, I am not so sure that I feel the same way. What we find is a very prescriptive set of rules that must be followed in order to be “a good speaker.” I have seen very little that encourages students to break these rules in order to provide their audience with something new and unique. It seems to me that if everyone has read Cicero’s treatise on defending and prosecuting a court case, then those involved are really just going through the motions. You know what the other person is going to say, and then you respond in the appropriate manner. There seems to be less emphasis on speakers thinking for themselves, and more focus on pluggin different topics into the same mold.If every speaker ended up following the same pattern in their orations, then it seems like the audience would begin to lose interest. Eventually they would find themselves in a society that was complete disinterested in listening to public speakers because they all “sound the same.” Wait, I think we are that society. Thanks Cicero.

Ah, To Be a Roman Schoolboy Again

What I find most striking from the reading in Conley is the huge difference in the importance that is placed on speaking by the Greeks, and later Romans, and our modern culture. He discusses the extensive programs that young boys went through in order to become educated men. While this enkyklios paideia (rounded education) focused on many different areas, it is clear that the end goal was to produce a young man who could speak well on a number of different subjects. The success and prosperity of these students depended on both their natural abilities as a speaker and their assimilation of skills and knowledge from an experienced rhetorician. This is not the case today. Most courses that address the area of speech and rhetoric are seen as optional. They are electives that students may choose to either take or avoid altogether. There is no focused effort applied to a student’s ability to speak well in any formal setting. The result is clearly seen in the world we live in. You do not have to speak well in order to gain power and notoriety. We have world leaders who are among the worst offenders in terms of their speech and rhetoric skills. Even the leaders of educational facilities can be found gravely lacking in their ability to speak and reach a group. How far we have come.

Which Ancient Greek am I?

The first two chapters in Readings from Classical Rhetoric offers a pretty extensive look at the early years of rhetoric. It was interesting to read this after having read the corresponding section in Conley’s book. The excerpts provided offer a much more approachable look at the texts being discussed. It is very interesting to see how different these men were in their approaches to the same subject. As I read I found myself trying to decide who I related to in my own beliefs and understanding of rhetoric. I was drawn to Gorgias’ thought that speech could allow us to accomplish “god-like works” (8). I was fairly put off by Plato’s attempts to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. He is, please excuse the term, a borderline douche. I think that I most align most with Aristotle. His use of ethos, logos and pathos is what I base much of my own speech instruction on. He is not concerned with finding the Truth, but with the ways that we try to persuade one another. I can buy into that.

Conley - A Brief Rundown

Conley provides us with a very concise view of the foundations of rhetoric in his opening chapter. By exploring these early thinkers, we are able to identify the origins of nearly every branch of rhetoric, and to some extent, literary theory that follows. The two sophist takes on rhetoric, Gorgiannic and Protagorean, seem to provide us with one of the greatest arguments against rhetoric - it’s just a matter of opinion. Whether they are trying to manipulate their audience through response to stimulus or through a debate of both sides of an issue, both views focus on the doxa, or opinion. Neither is concerned with finding truth. They are the original smooth talking lawyers and used car salesmen. Plato comes along and offers us a more “noble” look at rhetoric. He uses the dialectic as a way to reach the Truth. He cares little for opinion, and seeks only to find the “ideas” that provide true understanding. Aristotle’s rhetoric is the one that seems to be the most familiar to people. He was less concerned with actually persuading someone to believe or act, and more concerned with understanding the different ways in which he might persuade them. Isocrates offers the final view introduced by Conley. His focus was on the eloquence of the speaker, and not on the truth or doxa of the material. He claimed that speaking well went along with thinking well. If the rhethor could speak well, then his subject must be worthy of attention.

Here At The End of All Things

As we come to the close of this course, I find myself less certain about what my philosophy of composition is. When we stared eighteen weeks ago, I was pretty certain that I knew what composition was, and how I should go about teaching it. Since then, I have become less sure of both what I know and what the best way to pass that knowledge, or lack of knowledge, on to my students is. I believe that I am much better off now than I was then.

I entered this course with a lot of ideas about composition that were not my own. I was perfectly content to ride along on the path that had been set for me by English and education programs. I used what I had been told there, and my own experience to create what I thought was a very reasonable program of composition study for my students. This would not have been a problem if I had know even a little bit about the composition discourse that has been occurring in this country for the last 100 years. I was clueless. I assumed that the limited exposure that I had to composition was the entire picture. I had no idea that what I held to be truth was only one small section of the discussion. It is only after having spent so much time over these weeks that I have even truly begun to get an inkling as to the bigger picture. I had never heard of Richard Lanham, but his work has already begun to influence my classroom. I had heard the names of Bartholomae and Elbow in passing, but I had no idea about the impact that their debates had had on the field. I considered myself to be a technologically aware teacher because I am so familiar with the new trends that students are exposed to, but I had not considered the impact that this technology was having on my students. I was in the dark about so many things.

As I sit here this evening, I have very few answers. I don’t know what my philosophy is. I don’t know what the best practices are for my students today. What I do know is that I am more prepared to ask the questions that may lead me to the best practices for my students tomorrow. The most truthful way that I can provide my current philosophy of composition is through these questions. So, my philosophy as of today is:
What is composition?
Is it more than a paper and a pencil?
How long are the paper and pencil going to remain relevant?
Is my insistence of making students “write” their work benefitting me or them?
Should I focus my grading on the process or the product?
Do I have to choose?
What is the “real world” going to evaluate them on?
Where does their voice fit into their writing?
Do I really let them have a voice, or do I expect them to sound like me?
What the heck do I do with grammar?
When do I cross the line between prescription and description?
Is it more important for students to have an argument or a mistake free sentence?
How can I use computers to make their writing better, and not just as a typing tool?
What do I do with students who don’t have access to a computer?
Is it better for my students to write about what they feel or what they know?
Is there a balance between the two?
If fewer students write for fun or to understand, then is this a losing battle?
What is my role in the classroom?
Am I a wilderness guide or an administrator?
What do I do with students who can’t write?
What do I do with students who won’t write?
What do I do with students who do write, but can do better?
What do I do with students who write well?
What do I do?

This Guy's Got Style

Richard Lanham seems to be a guy who really loves what he does. From everything that I read about him, I got the impression that he was doing exactly what he wanted to do in life. He has made a name for himself in the areas of technology, copyright law, and most importantly, style.

It was his work in style that I found to be the most interesting. This is an area that I am very interested in, but do not get to work with very often. In the high school setting, it seems that style gets pushed to the back. I spend most of my time working on complete sentences and actual words. It is one thing if a student chooses to use a variation of the language as a stylistic choice, but that is very rarely the case. Lanham suggests that style is the key to really understanding writing. He believes that it should be the primary focus in writing instruction. If we neglect style, we neglect the joy that can be associated with writing. We can’t be complacent in our writing and allow it to become stale and stagnant. If all writing begins to look the same, then there is no reason to write. We have to find the pleasure that use to exist in writing.

He also stresses the importance of understanding style in order to fully comprehend what a student is reading. Most readers look through the style in order to find the meaning behind the words. Others become too occupied with the style and never gain an understanding of the text because they only look at the style. Lanham suggests that in order to truly understand a piece of writing, you have to be able to look both through it see the meaning of the words, and at it in order to understand the author’s use of style. Changes in the style can affect the meaning that an author was attempting to pass along to the reader.

I Just Don't Know

I think that Yancey is really on to something in terms of her use of the portfolio. I have often tried to find ways to incorporate portfolios into my classroom, but I have never been able to take the final step and really commit to it. Portfolios have the potential to be used as an authentic assessment that can demonstrate a student’s growth in any number of areas. I think that there is a great deal of understanding that can take place when a student is able to look at his work over a given period of time and see the progress that he has made. Given the chance to have honest reflection and time to evaluate his own words, a student can begin to look at their work critically. That is, I believe, the greatest benefit that the portfolio has to offer. Then why am I so reluctant to use them? Why can’t I just jump in like Yancey and begin to incorporate the portfolio into my classes? My biggest reason for hesitating is my uncertainty over whether my students would be willing to put forth an effort to offer an honest and critical look at their work. I have tried to do small assignments that require students to evaluate their work, and have had mixed results from it. I have students who give an actual effort to look critically at their work. These students would do just fine with a portfolio. The problem is that these students are the minority. Most of my students would offer only the most superficial review of their work and put forth only enough effort to make a passing grade. For these students, the portfolio would not have the same benefits. There has to be an evaluation component if the work is going to be worthwhile for these students. I am not sure if a half-hearted attempt at a portfolio is going to be better for these mediocre students than a more consistent feedback from me for the work that they are doing. Help me Kathleen Yancy!!

Say What?

Lindemann’s ideas were a bit hard to come to terms with at first. It seemed contrary to what we do in the high school to say that there is no place for literature in the composition classroom. I had to take a step back and try to understand where she was coming from when she made this statement. I was finally able to see that she was talking about a class that is strictly focused on composition. At the college level, this situation is the norm. For those of us in the high school level, we are not able to separate the two. We do not divide composition and literature, especially in the early years. We have to use literature alongside composition because we are expected to give them exposure to both of them. As I began to look at her statement in this light, it started to make more sense to me. I know that it is very true that the discussions that take place about the literature are usually centered on me asking questions and then hoping that someone will not only be able to answer, but also be lead to a comment of their own. It usually ends up with me doing a lot of talking and the students looking at me.

I was very interested in her thoughts on the combination of the product and process methods of writing. She has taken the benefits of each and focused on them, while avoiding many of the drawbacks. Her focus on the community and social aspects of writing is something that I think I need to focus on more with my students. They really don’t have a very clear concept of their role in any conversation outside of their immediate lives. They don’t see their work as having an impact on a larger scale. I need to work to show them that their words can impact their world in ways that they are unaware of.

Technology - yes or no?

I really like what Cynthia Selfe has to say about technology. Her thoughts seem to align pretty closely to my own when it comes to the role of technology in the classroom.

She is spot on when she says that teachers must incorporate technology not only into their classrooms, but also into their own lives. Students are using the technology every day. As a teacher, I have two choices. I choose to ignore the technology around me. I can avoid email. I can pretend that text messaging doesn’t exist. I can remain clueless about things like MySpace and Facebook. I can pretend like the world has not changed in the last twenty years and that I can go on living the way that I did when I started school. I could choose to look at technology this way, and I can give up any hope of reaching the students who come into my classroom. If I remain in the dark about the technology that my students are using, I am choosing to ignore one of the biggest influences in their lives. I will never be able to really connect to students if I am unable to speak to them in terms that they can understand.

Having said that, I also have to be aware of how I approach the use of technology in the classroom. I can’t just assume that every student I meet will have equal access to all forms of technology. If I am trying to incorporate technology into my classroom, then I have to be very aware of the opportunities that my students have to use this technology on their own. I have to be able to provide them with the technology in the classroom, or assure them that they will have access to it somewhere else. If I assume that they all have a computer, I turn the technology into an oppression rather than a liberation.

Let's All Get Together

Kenneth Bruffee’s ideas on collaboration really hit home with me. As a teacher, I think that the only way that I can truly be effective in the classroom is through varying levels of collaboration.

My primary collaboration is with my students. It is my task to remain in constant conversation with them in everything that we do. When I introduce new topics, I must give my students the context for the information before I can expect them to really comprehend it. I need to be able to provide them with the “so what?” and the “ why do I need this?” when they ask for it, which they will. Giving my students information does not constitute a conversation or collaboration. I need to listen to them after I have given them the initial information. I need to encourage them to question what they are learning in order to gain a better understanding of it. Their role, according to Bruffee, is to talk about the material being covered. I need to also provide them with the skills that they will need in order to feel comfortable participating in other discourses outside of the classroom. They need to understand that their role in the conversation does not end with their graduation. My classroom needs to become a model of the dialogues that my students will hopefully partake in in the future.

In addition to my students, I need to be in collaboration with the other teachers around me. This conversation allows me to look at problems from a different perspective in order to improve my own understanding. by discussing what is going on with others, I am able to see the questions, concerns and obstacles that my students may face when they are introduced to the same material. Collaboration allows me to see material in a new way.

This Guy Knows Everything

As a child, I felt that my grandpa knew everything. He was able to fix a car, a faucet, a scraped knee, and even my injured pride. There was no subject that he couldn't contribute his own thoughts on. This is how I felt after meeting Dr. Burns last week. As I looked back on my notes, I was surprised to see just how much information we manged to discuss in such a short period of time. A few of these points really stand out as things that I want to really hold on to.

The first thing that I think is important to mention, is Dr. Burns' ability to tie all of these pieces together. He seemed to effortlessly make connections between some of the very different subjects we covered. I am sure that some of these connections are already present in the material, but his understanding of them help him to illustrate those connections to us. His use of the "Seven Books You Would Write as a Philospher," really made clear the connections between these different areas of study. This simple premise opened the material to a very bacis, but comrehensive understanding.

I was also very impressed with the huge amount of first-hand experience he has had in his areas of study. I found it very interesting that he was working on the primitive ancetors of the search engine, before anyone had even considered the possibilites that it would make available. I was not aware that this particluar style of programming had its roots in composition. It made it even more interesting that he is still working in this field. He has been in the field almost from its inception, which ver few people can claim. His discussion of the steps that you go through to prgram AI was similar to some of the steps that I have to take my students through as they begin to do their own research.

40 Years and Still Fighting

This article serves as a survey of feminist literary criticism over the last 40 years. While its purpose is to cover a wide range of material briefly, and not necessarily to present the reader with new information about the topic, it does manage to make a few points that seemed to stick out from the rest.
The first thing that stuck out to me was the need for this article in the first place. At the risk of sounding sexist, let me explain. It amazes me that in our current world that seems to pride itself on its acceptance of all people, we still find ourselves with such a disparity between the sexes. It baffles me that the world of academia, the supposedly enlightened portion of society, took so long to recognize the contributions of women. Even today, we find ourselves struggling to overcome these old habits.
I also found it interesting that they would include the remarks of Sullivan that men and women have differing cognitive skills (58). This seems to be contradictory to much of what is being said by other areas of feminism. There seems to be an aversion to the idea that there is a fundamental difference in the ways that men and women think. This admission lends itself to a judgment of value by those who are seeking to undermine the contributions of women. Sullivan’s idea that men and women should approach research differently sets the area of women’s studies up for attacks from those who would claim that men’s use of “the quantitatively focused scientific method” is more valid than women’s “qualitative research techniques.” While there may be very little difference in the final outcomes of these different methods, the fact that Sullivan claims that women are more seemingly more adept at one suggests that they are not as skilled in the other. I thought this was an interesting point to include in this particular piece.

It's Perfect - Don't Change Anything

I am torn when it comes to the use of peer review in the classroom. Many of the benefits that this article discusses are the same arguments that I use to defend my use of peer review in the classroom. On the other hand, many of the questions that the article raises are also very present in my own mind as I continue to use peer review in the classroom. The study done by Brammer and Rees seems to only further my confusion over the issue. Their findings seem to be aligned with the turmoil that I am already facing.
I feel very strongly that peer review can have a positive impact on the writing of students. I think that it can be a great benefit to students to have someone else read their material. Everyone can benefit from sharing their work with an outsider who is able to evaluate our work. When I use peer review, I stress to students that is is more than just an exercise in finding mistakes in the mechanics and grammar of a piece. The peer reviewer can look at the arguments being made in a piece. They can give feedback to the author as to the clarity and completeness of the arguments being presented. The peer reviewer can also evaluate the level of support that has been provided by the author. They can point out areas of the paper that may be weaker than others. They can help us see our work from a different point of view. There are plenty of benefits that come along with a quality peer review.
The phrase, “quality peer review,” is where my struggle is rooted. No matter how much time I spend working with students on the correct way to reviewer someone’s work, I always end up with just a surface level evaluation. Most of the marks made, if there are any made at all, are marks dealing with spelling or punctuation. There is very little discussion of the organization of a work. Most students fail to point out any areas of weakness in their peers work. They miss the point of the exercise. Part of this is due to the fact that they don’t see much purpose in the activity. They see it as a waste of time, as many of the students in the study reported. If students don’t take the exercise seriously, there is no point. Students may also struggle to evaluate another’s work because they don’t feel confident in their own writing. If they struggle to write, how can they possibly look at someone else’s work and make suggestions?

Brammer and Rees offer a suggestion that may solve this problem. They suggest that peer review becomes a part of each step of the writing process. By incorporating peer review into the early stages, prewriting and brainstorming, it gains more value with the writer. This solution also means that students would be spending more time doing peer reviews. This extended exposure to the process can increase a student’s level of comfort with it.

We've Lost Our Revision

I can understand how students would find the idea of rewriting a work to be foreign sounding. I would have to admit that I find it hard to really comprehend myself. I have never had to completely rewrite a work from beginning to end. The computer has taken away this particular hardship. In some regards I think that it is a benefit, but I can also see it as a downfall as well.

The computer has made writing a less intimidating practice. Students have more freedom when it comes to typing on a computer, or I guess I should say word processing. Students have the ability to make instant changes to their work.
We have seen the images of people hunched over a keyboard trying to “bang” out a paper quickly. The keys stick. The paper jams. The smallest mistake may require the retying of an entire page. No thank you. I would much rather have the freedom that a computer offers. Sitting comfortably over a keyboard. Constantly hitting the caps lock by mistake. Printing on a printer that never jams, or runs out of ink, or just looks at me and laughs. The only time that I have to retype is when I forget to save, or the computer shuts off, or when a hard drive crashes – which hardly ever happens. The only real difference, it seems, is that with a computer you have the freedom to make large changes to a work with very little effort. I am not sure whether this is good or bad. It allows students to move a paragraph from one location to another with just the click of a mouse. They can alter their organization with ease. There is something to be said about struggling though. If we make the writing process too easy for students, then I think that their writing is bound to suffer. While I can’t imagine myself rewriting a text 7 times, I have to wonder about what would happen if I did. What would I find in my writing if I decided to reexamine everything that I wrote 7 times?

By removing the rigor of revision, we have seemingly removed its importance as well. Students rely on their spellchecking software in order to catch all of their mistakes, and not on their own close reading of their text. The type and type until they reach the expected number of pages, and then they spell check, save, print, and turn it in, often without rereading it. By taking away the need for students to retype, we have taken away their need to read their work. They have lost all understanding of revision as anything more than a cursory glance at spelling and punctuation, if they even do that.

While I cheer for the invention of the word processor, I also lament the age of revisions that has seemingly passed us by. Students may be less intimidated to sit down and type now, but is their quality of work really worth the lack of trepidation? I just don’t know.

End note – This is draft number one of this entry.

A Little Bit of This and a little Bit of That

Bizzell seems to be one of the most practical figures that we have looked at so far. She seems to be able to look at what everyone is saying about composition, and take the pieces that make sense from each of them. She has used her experience in the field to sort through what everyone is saying, and pick out what makes the most sense to her and combining it into her own beliefs. She has not tried to reinvent the wheel or create a theory that opposes what is being said by other s in the field. She listens, and observes and then uses all of the pieces to come up with a complete picture. I think that Shaynee was correct in using the puzzle as an analogy for Bizzell’s theory.
Bizzel’s thoughts on writing and thinking were very interesting. We can’t just stop at teaching our students how to write. By giving them only the skills to write, we assume that our students will be able to use them. The problem is, our students don’t always have the skills that they need to think. They are often lacking the basic understanding of how to approach a problem or how to think through something that is difficult. According to Bizzell, one of our roles as the teacher is to teach our students to think. They have to be able to do this before they can write effectively. Grammar and punctuation are not important if the thinking is not there. The trick, also according to Bizzell, is that we cannot separate writing from thinking. We have to teach students to connect their writing with their thinking. Writing gives students a way to think through a problem and then go back and retrace their steps. Writing allows them to express a jumble of ideas one at a time in an order that makes sense. We can’t just focus on writing, but on the relationship that writing has with thinking. We can’t look at only one part of the problem.
I also liked Bizzell’s thoughts on the needs of students, and how we meet those needs. Some teachers focus only on additive teaching. They present students with the rules of writing and show them what “good” writing looks like and hope that that will be enough for students to become “good” writers. Other teachers just focus on the students’ role in a discourse community and provide them with select skills that they need in order to succeed. They don’t worry about the formal properties of writing or the ideas that students use to write. These two styles of teaching leave out vital aspects of understanding if they are taken separately. Bizzell suggests a third solution in the combination of both. She advocates the use of the rules and forms of writing alongside the greater implications that writing can have in the society.

Stuck in the Middle

I think that I would find myself somewhere between Elbow and Bartholome in their debate over the best way to teach composition. Some of the areas they discuss I feel very strongly one way or the other. Some areas I can see myself going either way on. Some of the areas I may feel one way about, but the current state of education makes it difficult for me to proceed the way I would like to.
When it comes to what students should write about, I find myself in the middle of the debate. I think that there are definitely types of writing that students must be able to do that would be considered academic. They need to be able to form their thoughts in to a comprehendible argument. They should be able to correctly write a letter and form complete paragraphs. These are things that student need to know. I also believe that it is important that students have a chance to write something that has no set form, or expectations from me. They need to see writing as an activity that can be done for no reason other than a means for expressing something that they feel is important. There needs to be a balance between personal writing and academic writing.
I agree with Bartholome in regard to how students should understand their roles in larger sense. Students need to be able to understand their position as a member of a bigger social group. I think that it is doing students a disservice if we fail to show them how they are influenced, and in turn influence, the world around them. They are individuals, but I don’t think that anyone is able to go through life without being impacted by some outside force. Students need to understand the way that they are affected by these outside forces in order to make a decision about whether they choose to be influenced by them or not.
I don’t know if I could justify using students’ writing as the key text for a course. I think that it definitely has a place in the curriculum. I have students do short writing pieces that we will later use to work on skills like identifying main ideas and voice. By using their own work, students are able to see these ideas in their own words, and not just in a text book. It also shows students that their writing has merit and worth to their understanding of topics being covered in class. I am right between these two men here.
I find Bartholome’s use of the term “frontier guide” to be pretty funny. I think that he is taking a shot at those who tend to turn their students loose on a topic and let them wander around in the wilderness of academe. Hopefully, these students will all make it out on the other side. While I don’t see myself as a frontier guide, I don’t think that I would label myself as manager either. I think that while I may have to use the skills of a manager to keep students on task and focused, the title is not quite accurate. I think that Elbow’s term may be closer to how I see myself. I teach my students the basic skills they need, provide time for them to practice these skills, but at the end of the day it is up to them to perform or not.

Conlfict in the Classroom? Bring It On!

I agree with what Graff has to say about a lot of things. He seems to make a lot of sense in his discussion of composition and education.
His views on conflict, and discussion over curriculum were particularly interesting for me. I think that it makes a lot sense to use conflict over a particular novel or subject being taught in order to engage students in the material. Students enjoy disagreeing, so what better way to get them involved than by giving them something to disagree with. If a teacher can get a group of students to become engage in an on-going discussion over the merits of a particular work, or its value to them in the future, then I think that those students are much more likely to stay engaged. Scott talked about using conflict as a catalyst for teaching, which makes sense. The students need some way to approach the material, and a conflict is one way they can do this. This takes a lot of confidence in the teacher though. The teacher has to be willing to bring conflict into the classroom. For some, this is a pretty intimidating idea. It requires the teacher to be prepared to defend the choices she is making in class and support these choices. It also means that you will be creating a group of students who will begin to question what you are doing more frequently. This is one of the most important lessons we can teach students. They need to begin to question. They need to have knowledge of all sides in a debate, before they can begin to understand it.
This leads right into another point that Scott made on behalf of Graff. Graff’s claim that argumentation is the basis for all fields really made sense as well. I think that in everything that we do, academically, socially, professionally, etc., we are forming some argument. When are constantly trying to present a point to someone else in the hopes that they will agree with it and support us. If we lack the skills to form an argument, we are going to be crippled in nearly all aspects of our lives. We have to be able to pass this information along to students. They need to be able to make a claim, support it, and the revise their claim if needed. This seems simple enough, but it is one of the most difficult things for students to understand. They grow up listening to poor arguments from adults, “Because I said so,” and they never see a need to improve their own argumentation skills. By giving students a chance to form arguments and debate an issue in a safe and controlled environment like the classroom, we provide them with the opportunities that they need to develop their own skills of discussion and argumentation. They need to be able to argue logically and civilly in order to fully interact with the world.

Lunford's quests

Nancy’s focus was on Lunsford’s attention to the role of women, historically, in the area of writing. She also discussed Lunsford’s ideas about the role of collaboration present in much of her writing. These areas highlight Lunsford’s work in the past, as well as what she is continuing to do today.
Lunsford spent a lot of time working to change the image of women’s roles in writing. She struggled against the male-centered world of academia in order to reach the goals that she had set for herself. She was able to pursue a higher education even after she was turned away initially. Lunsford continues to work to address the roles of women in the classes that she teaches today. In order to bring the works of female writers to the attention of her students, she pairs them with well-known male authors. By introducing her students to the little-known female authors, she can begin to demonstrate to her students that women have been important figures as long as men have been. As a culture, we tend to overlook the contributions of women writers. Lunsford is working to put a stop to this trend. She finds works and authors form the major stages in composition that have been marginalized for most of recorded history.
Lunsford also spends a lot of time focusing on the idea of collaboration in writing. She claims that, “all writing is collaborative.” Even when we write on our own we have a dialogue running through our head. We respond to what we have heard, or read from other sources. We think through and address arguments that people might make against our own argument. We have people read what we have written in order to verify that it is clear and comprehensible. In the most overt forms of collaboration, we work side by side with another person to create a single piece of writing. We discuss back and forth about the topic and create a more complete argument through this discussion. Lunsford modeled her ideas regarding collaboration through much of her work. She wrote many titles with her collaborator Lisa Ede. Even though the two had very different styles of writing and the process that accompanies it, they were able to use these differences in order to create a stronger work. They worked together and helped each other overcome their shortcomings. This collaboration proves to be an effective example for those who read their works. Her work with collaboration also continues today. She is constantly pushing for changes in the world of higher education in regard to collaboration. She is seeking acceptance for collaborative graduate dissertations, and thesis projects. While many see these changes as an attack on the integrity of academia, Lunsford sees them as a chance for students to work together in order to create a stronger end product.

Murray and the 'process'

I was very interested in Murray’s thoughts on writing. I think that his focus on pre-vision, vision and re-vision is an effective way to let students know what the writing process should look like. As an English teacher, we are constantly trying to stress the importance of the process involved with writing, usually with little effect.
I particularly liked the idea that you should not start writing until you had taken a significant amount of time to discuss your work with yourself. This is something that writers do that seems foreign to students. They are under the impression that they should begin writing right away in order to finish quickly. They take no time for thinking over the information. They take no time develop an argument to guide their work. They take no time to reach some point of destination for their work. They just sit, and usually end up staring at a blank page until they finally exclaim, “I don’t know what to say.” It would be interesting to give them an assignment that prohibited any written work until they could discuss their subject with themselves, or another student. It would be equally interesting to present them with the idea of a writing signal that ‘tells’ students when they should begin writing.
The vision phase is often seen as a condensed version of the re-vision phase. Students begin to revise too early in the process. They spend too little time developing an order and meaning to their work and focus on spelling and grammar errors. This leaves students with a seemingly wandering sense of order in their work. Without enough time to develop meaning, students are left with very thin arguments and little support. They don’t put the appropriate effort into the ground work, and they are left lacking in the end.
The final phase of writing is where students seem to jump to before they work on the real structure of their writing. The re-vision phase focuses on the voice of the paper, and the final editing of the mechanics. While this is an important step, it is not the most important step. If a student spends the majority of his writing time here, he loses the time that should be spent developing and crafting a paper. The edit, according to Murray is the last act of the writer in order to become the reader’s advocate. Even if a work is free from errors and is easy to read, that does not guarantee that there is anything worth reading.
The discussion of the environment that accompanies writing was also interesting. We sometimes forget that our students are going to react to the way that we present an assignment, and not just the content of that assignment. If we continue to force students to write within a rigid frame, we are going to push them even further away from writing. We have taken one of our most basic means of communication and alienated our students from it.

Ong and the world of tomorow

Walter Ong makes a very interesting point about the development of our ‘global village.’ We constantly hear about the role of capitalism or commerce in expanding borders. We hear how the world is made smaller by our use of the telephone or video technology. But, according to Ong, the real source of our current world-wide community is our dependence on secondary orality. Ong argues that we have transitioned form a culture that first was only concerned with the group. Because our communication was limited only to what could be spoken to one another, cultures held the group as the primary focus. The group was where we spent our time. Our thoughts centered on those around us. It wasn’t until the introduction of the written word that we began to turn our focus inward. We began to think and process the world around us on our own terms. We moved the focus of understanding away from the group and turned it on ourselves. People were able to interact with ideas, concepts and beliefs in the privacy of their own mind. This transition was expanded with the invention of the printing press. More people were able to access words in a standard format. We could disseminate information to entire people groups. This allowed the greater portion of our community to begin to think. It was not just the elite and wealthy who had the opportunity to touch and hold knowledge. The lowliest peasant could learn to understand the written word because it was readily available. Even with this widespread access to words, we continued to turn inward. People focused on their own thoughts and only entered the realm of public discourse on specific occasions. It wasn’t until we had spent a significant amount of thinking in the confines of the individual that we began to look outward to the rest of the world. With the introduction of what Ong calls secondary orality, we began to reach out to those around us. We feel an obligation to look at the world around us because we have first looked at ourselves. We have a need for spontaneity because we have decided that it is beneficial. We find this spontaneity in others. It is this transition from the group to the individual and back to the larger group that has lead to our current system of discourse.
We continue to develop this realm of secondary orality in order to keep up with the changes in technology that accompany it. As the means of communication advance, we must adjust our use of them in order to make the most of these systems. We must learn to interface with a new system every few years. This time frame is decreasing steadily. As the technology drives forward, we must scramble to keep up.

Hooray for DNA!

While I found the subject matter being covered in Sidler’s article interesting, I don’t know if I share her belief that our current study of the human genome is going to drastically change the way that we teach and understand composition in the near future. I think that, as a result of the larger scope of technological advances currently taking place in all sectors, there will be marked changes in composition, but I don’t know if they will be the result of a single area of research. The studies that Sidler mentions will cause changes, but these changes will be gradual and will occur in tandem with other advance. I don’t think that we can clearly separate the effects of one advancement over another. I will take a moment to discuss some of the points that Sidler makes in her article.

Our students’ environments will be changing. I can’t imagine that anyone involved in education would argue with the fact that the world is different than it was even ten years ago. The world is much faster than it was when I was in high school. Nearly all of my students have cell phones. They walk around with iPods permanently attached to their ears. Their primary form of communication is text messaging. Not only is the world changing to a faster format of communication, but these changes are coming faster and faster. The jump from email to instant messaging took several years. People were “slow” to make a transition from a relatively stable form of communicating, one that at least offered a chance for revision and reflection, to amore instantaneous one. This provided an easier jump to an even faster and more convenient form of communication. As the technology improves, people are more willing to jump to the newest trend in communication. Our students are going to be among those who make the jump first. We have to be aware of the changes and be ready to adapt to them as well. We can no longer sit back and wait for a form of communication to develop. Our students’ environments are changing so rapidly, that, if we wait, they will have already moved on to a new technology before we even start to consider learning it.

One aspect of Sidler’s discussion that unsettled me was her look at how our students’ bodies will be changing as a result of research in genetics. There is already a rift between the “haves” and the “have nots.” This gap is going to increase exponentially if we reach at point at which wealthy parents can afford to make their children smarter from birth. I cannot even begin to comprehend how a teacher can successfully manage a classroom in which some of the children are bred to be smarter than others. How can we create a system that meets the needs of all children if are creating children with an obvious biological advantage? Would we need new classes for the genetically enhanced? Would we need entire advanced programs for these students? Would we need new schools for these students? Would we ignore the obvious correlations this has to the past?

Process or post-process - why not both?

I can see myself using all three of the composition styles that are being discussed in this article. There are lessons in which I feel that it is important that my students understand the, “rules, conventions, standards, quality and rigor,” that make up the current-traditional rhetoric. Some assignments are more suited to the more organic, discovered, “messy” style that is highlighted in the process-oriented method. There are even days when I try to stress to my students the importance of their writing in terms o f the larger social picture in which they are situated. In this sense, I feel that I fit in, at least to some degree, with those who feel that post-process is the way to go. I think that the only way to truly prepare my students to become writers in any situation is to provide them with at least a limited exposure to all of the styles.

Matsuda does very little to veil his dislike of the current-traditional rhetoric. It is clear to the reader that he views this as an outdated mode of education. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with him. While I think that it is important to encourage students to use their own voice and style when they write, I also understand that they will find themselves in situations that will require them to demonstrate their ability to write according to the rules and guidelines that are followed by the more prescriptive users of the language. When a student applies for a job, the potential employer may not be impressed by a witty use of dialogue or a turn of phrase that shows the student’s skills in writing. The student must be able to first use the skills before she is able to understand when it is appropriate to use them, and when they can be abandoned for a more expressive use of the language.

The more expressive style found in process writing is where I spend most of my pedagogical time. I would bet that most teachers today spend a majority of the time working on the process of writing. This can either be credited to the teacher’s genuine belief that this is the best way for students to learn composition, or the fact that most of the focus in curriculum and professional development is centered on the writing process. For me, I believe that this is the best way for a student to gain ownership over her writing. If a student is able to choose a topic that is important to her, understand that topic and then demonstrate her understanding of the topic in a format that she finds fitting, she will end up with a product that is more genuine and relevant than anything that I could prescribe for her. The problem with this approach is that it is very difficult to create a fair and balanced means of assessing it.

Post-process writing is where I spend the least amount of time with my students. This particular focus, on the social role of composition, is difficult for students to grasp. I have a hard enough time trying to encourage students to find interest in their own life, let alone in the larger social system. Nevertheless, I do try and create at least some understanding in my students as to what their role can be and how their words can contribute to a grander public conversation, both through writing and discourse.

Everything I Need to Know I Learned From Spellcheck.

I have to admit, I have never really thought about the influence that spell check has had on my writing. It has always just been there. I saw it as a harmless advisor that would point out basic mistakes as I was typing. As a mediocre typist, I spend most of my time looking at the keys, so it is nice to have a way to keep track of what I was actually typing. For me, the spell check has always remained a tool though, and not a form of instruction. I have always been able to look at the suggestions and reject them if they did not make sense, or if they went against a style that I was trying to use. Because I have thought so little of my own use of spell check, I have not given it much thought in terms of my students either. This is something that I need to remedy.

I believe that part of my duty as a teacher is to instruct my students in the skills that are going to be most relevant to them. These skills are not limited to what they will need on a test, but should include real-life skills that will really make a difference. As McGee and Ericsson say, I need to become “more than a user of technology.” I need to teach my students how to evaluate technology and how to wield it as a tool and not a crutch. My students need to be able to make decisions on their own in terms of their revision choices. I am sure that most of my students just click the first option that comes up when they check their grammar and spelling, if they check their grammar and spelling. I need to model for them the process that they should take in order to evaluate their options and choose the one that best suits their needs.

I also need to emphasize with my students when it is best to use this tool. In class, I try to lead students through steps in writing that allow them to progress from their initial ideas to a finished product. I can help students to develop ideas, and focus on how they choose to express them while they are in my classroom. When they leave the classroom, however, they are their own. They are at the mercy of their computer. They can become too concerned with grammar and spelling mistakes and forget about their ideas. If they are writing a piece of dialogue, they may be lead away from their own choices and guided by the choices of a programmer. The key is not forcing students to avoid using the tool, it can be a benefit to their writing, but to instruct them on how to use it correctly and as an aid and not a hindrance. It is just another step in educating students in how to interact with their world and not just be moved along by it.

My teaching philosophy, week 2

How do I take what I have read this week and synthesize into some concept that can lead to a tangible, applicable philosophy? I think that I must do what scholars have done for generations before me – I’ll take what I like and pretend like didn’t see the rest. I don’t think that I can, or that I should, take every piece of these articles and try to squeeze them into my own thoughts. I can take bits and pieces that I found from each of these articles and apply them to my own beliefs. So, that is what I am going to do. I will take the “sound bytes” that stuck out and try and connect the dots between them.

Fulkerson states that one problem with modern composition instruction is that instructors, “may expect students to produce arguments but fail to share that expectation with students.” I have to be aware of what my own expectations are, and also how clearly I have expressed these expectations to my students. If I am not clear with them, they cannot be clear with me. If I expect them to write well, then I must first be able to demonstrate to them what “well” means.
Schultz discusses the need for teachers to be aware of what methods and practices are going to be most useful for their students, and not stay entrenched in those they are most familiar with. I must be willing to look outside of the accepted trends in order to see what is really happening in the world. Shultz suggests that, “new varieties of life are constantly being created in the margins through unanticipated, uncontrolled, and unplanned cross-pollination and intermingling.” As a teacher, I have to be willing to learn.

The point that I want to take from Williams is not one of his main focuses. During his discussion of criticism, he makes the statement that, “there are innumerable other stories that one would have to tell to get anywhere near to telling a comprehensive history.” This is a point that I feel very strongly about, not in terms of the story of criticism, but in other areas of study. I am robbing my students if I do not share with them as diverse a view of the world as possible. If I continue to repeat a Western-centered focus on the world, I am leaving out an enormous section of history. I need to learn and share as many divergent views of the world as I can.

Bishop talks about her role as an instructor of composition. Although she spends a good portion of the article discussing the inequities in composition in the college setting, I think she makes a vital point that can apply to the high school as well. She describes them as, “a dedicated minority by choice: as agents instead of those acted upon.” I can either accept the role that I have chosen as an educator, or I can embrace it and revel in it. I can choose to focus on the things that I cannot change- administration, testing, schedules - or I can choose to use what I am given and provide everything that I do have control over for the use of my students.

Although I need to be willing to use what I am given, as opposed to letting what I lack hinder me, there does come a point when we as educators must be willing to stand in the face of those who are in control and say “this is wrong.” Popken’s article serves as an example of an educator who was not willing to let himself, as well as his students, suffer as a result of an ignorant system of control. Some decisions must be spoken out against, no matter the cost. I cannot serve my students by blindly going along with a system that I feel is causing them great harm. They are not getting what they need form the system, or from me, if there are structures in place that cause a continuous disheartening of me the teacher. I must be willing to take a stand and say, “I can put no heart into my work till something is done to relieve [it].”

My final lesson comes from Stewart and his discussion of the trends in modern composition instruction. He explores the way that teachers become mired in the traditional models of composition and fail to see the living language around them. As an instructor, I have to be aware of the world that my students will be entering. I am doing them a great disservice if I only provide them with an explanation of the way the world of composition used to be, and not what it is or will be. Rather than focus on how my students fail to meet the expectations of years of compositional theory, I must be willing to demonstrate, “intelligent listening to the language which goes on around us all the time.”

While this is by no means a comprehensive philosophy, I feel that it does serve as a framework and a starting point to begin to focus in on the things I believe about education and filter out those things that I don’t agree with.

Response to Stewart

Balance is the key to almost everything that we do in life. Whether we are eating a balanced diet, trying to balance our budget, or performing a balancing act with our many obligations in life, balance is the key. It comes as no great surprise then that we find ourselves discussing balance in the area of education. While we can look at balance in most areas of education, it becomes most prevalent in a discussion of composition instruction. While we have to balance an equation in math, and we use a balance to measure reagents in science, and even though we may discuss the balance of good and evil in literature, it is in composition that we must learn to balance our voice with the voices of composition instructors of years gone by.

Composition is a unique discipline of study because it, more than any other area, forces us to put ourselves out to be judged. People see our words on the page, or screen, and evaluate them, not just on their mechanical accuracy, but also on the ideas that they represent. Our words express our thoughts to the world. The balance that we must find is that which exists between our thoughts, ideas and beliefs and the compositional conventions that the world accepts to be good and true. There are times when our thoughts should be the primary focus, and we can abandon all concern for conventions or mechanics. No one would suggest that a mourning child revise a sentence in a parent’s eulogy because of a misplaced modifier. We can accept that the content outweighs the convention. There are also times when strict adherence to the guidelines established by the composition authorities is a necessity. It does not matter how wonderful your ideas for reform are, if you cannot present them clearly and accurately people are not going to listen to them. You will not be accepted in higher levels of academia based on some profound concept that you have, unless you can write about without spelling errors. There is a time focus on the rules and guidelines that have shaped the English language for generations, and then there are times when you just have to chuck the book out the window write.

We have to be able to teach students, and writers in general, how to clearly identify the situation and then make a judgment as to what is an appropriate balance to have. I am constantly trying to reinforce with my students when it is ok to just write and when they have to stop and think about what it is that they’re writing. The example that comes to mind most readily is the intrusion of text lingo into formal essays. I have students who will insert numbers in place of words or letters, or use a single letter to represent an entire word. They laugh at themselves when I identify the problem, but they are very likely to make the mistake again. They are not able to find a balance between their voice and the rules that apply to written communication. As teachers of composition, this is where we should be focusing. We are never going to be able to remove this shortcut language, and I don’t think we should. What we should focus on is helping students to identify how this new form of expressing themselves fits into the larger composition picture. Talk 2 U l8r. JK. LOL.

Response to Williams

I believe strongly in Williams’ ideas for the most effective way of organizing anthologies, even though it is not something that I have necessarily thought of before. While I am not planning on assembling an anthology on my own, I think that the concepts behind his argument are very applicable to the courses that I am currently teaching. His ideas for moving away from texts, and by extension courses, that are focused only on individuals or individual concepts within a given area of study fit well with my own beliefs on teaching. This belief is most clearly seen in my American literature class.

I have taken courses in American literature that have focused on the “classic” American authors, if we can even begin to use that term to describe such a young group of authors. These courses would move through the authors that the instructor deemed worthy of study. We would read several texts written by this person and discuss how he, as most of them were usually men, had contributed to the grand design of American literature, and then we would move on to a completely new individual. That’s how the semester would progress, individuals plucked out of their context and examined based on their literary merit. Rather than providing a complete understanding of American literature, this approach only served to highlight a few contributors to the overall image. These professors believed that by showing us a few examples, we would get all of the information that we needed to understand the complexities of such a diverse picture. It was like trying to understand the grandeur of Mount Rushmore, but you only got to see the noses.

When I began teaching an American literature course of my own, I decided that I wanted to approach it in a different way. Much like Williams, I wanted to show more of the connections between different aspects of the topic, rather than a series of isolated names or categories. When I work with my seniors, I try to give them a more comprehensive look at how what they read and write today was influenced by individuals who came before them. We start with the earliest forms of literature that we have available – Native American texts – and progress through the modern literature that they are most familiar with– usually a magazine of some sort. As we look at this progression, I emphasize not just the different movements, but also how these movements are related to one another. We follow the repetitive pattern of one group rejecting the previous movement and trying to break away from what came before them. By looking at authors and literary movements in context to one another, students are better able to understand each group. They can better understand the Romantics by relating them to the Puritans. I also explore what was going on in history during these important changes. I don’t think it is possible to understand a movement in literature, or a school of criticism, without understanding how the world around it was influencing it.

Response to Popken

Teachers have it so easy. We are finished with work by three o’clock. We have weekends off. We have holidays off. We have summers off. We have a pretty good situation. So why are so many teachers so unhappy? Why do we have people like Hopkins who, even one hundred years ago, are fighting to make things better? What is it that we as teachers feel would make our lives better? I can’t speak for all teachers, but I do have a few thoughts.

I think that teachers need to feel like their needs are at least being considered by those who are making the decisions. I don’t know if it is an attempt to move education into a more business-minded setting, or if this has always been the case, but it seems as if the entire system continues to become more top down every year. The people at the top the ladder, superintendents, administrators, principals, are making sweeping changes to the way that schools are run with no consideration or consultation of the people “beneath” them. We take people who work for years to become experts in their field, and we completely disregard their input. Hopkins presented the heads of his university with a dire situation, and a feasible recommendation, but he was rejected out of hand. We have created a system of kings and lords sitting high up in their offices who then dictate down to their serfs what they must do. Even though they spend little-to-no time in the fields working, they are the ones who decide what is best. We have completely removed any buy-in that teachers might have in the system by relegating them to simple servants. Where else do you find such highly educated individuals who are viewed as nothing more than a tool to be used? We wouldn’t ask a shovel how to dig a hole so why should we ask a teacher how we should teach?

Teachers have also begun to lose their sense of fulfillment. Hopkins continued to teach because he felt it was God’s will for his life. That is a pretty strong motivator. I am not sure how many teachers feel the same today, but there are other reasons that have kept teachers going. One of the strongest arguments for teachers to continue has been the idea that they are making a difference. We hear it all the time. This belief that what we do in the classroom matters, has pushed countless teachers going past the point of exhaustion. I am afraid that we are on the verge of losing this motivator. As we continue to push the teacher further away from the student, we weaken the connection that the two have. By forcing curriculum changes and schedule changes and standardized testing and strategic plans into the classroom, we leave little room for what really matters – the teacher and the student. If teachers lose their belief that they are responsible for their students, they have very little to keep them where they are. As Popken says, “Teaching is a very costly labor.” For many teachers the benefits are no longer outweighing the costs.

Response to Schultz

I find it amazing, having read this article, that anyone ever left common or secondary school with any ambition for writing at all. If you were to sit down with a group of English teachers and try to create a book that would stifle students and turn them off to writing entirely, you would only need to provide a revised edition of Walker’s book. And yet, there were people who went on to become writers. There people who went on to become very gifted writers. It is easy for me to sit here today and criticize what I see as being an obviously-flawed method, but it had to work to some extent. We did not become a society of illiterates because children hated to write. We did not lose all literary ability, even though we stressed memorization and repetition over creativity and innovation. Something had to have worked effectively in this system.

I cannot bring myself to say that Walker had the right idea. My own thoughts on student creativity and exploration forbid me from uttering such a hypocritical idea. I do think that students can, and should, learn to write by writing. We don’t teach a student the theory of driving and then expect him to be prepared to drive. The best way for students to learn is to “get their hands dirty.” I present my students with opportunities to write long before I tell them how they should be writing. One of the first activities my students do is to write an essay introducing themselves to me. I don’t tell them what I mean by essay, and I don’t give them a set of rules that they must follow. I want them to write first and see that they do indeed have the ability to do it. Too often, I see students who are so concerned with doing something right, that they never even take a chance. If they can see that they already have the ability, they are much more likely to practice the skills that accompany it. Students need to have a sense of ownership over their work. They have few things in the world that truly belong to them. They may have a lot of “stuff” but most of that can be taken away by some authority figure. A student’s words and thoughts are his own, and they should remain that way. My job should not be to force my thoughts into a student, but rather, to provide a means for her to express her thoughts more clearly and in a form that is acceptable for a larger audience.

How can I justify using a method so opposed to Walker’s if I am willing to admit that it must have worked for students in his generation? I will blame it on the students. Walker was teaching a generation that had a much different work ethic than the one that I teach. His students would dutifully copy the work of other writers and eventually be able to connect it their own. My students would laugh in my face and sit, arms folded, and stare at a blank page. Students have become more than just little yes-men. They think and argue and question and refuse to be seen as anything other than a thinking individual. Walker’s text worked because students were willing to do what was requested. That is not the case today. Thank you Mr. Frost!

Response to Bishop

The best response I can offer is a poem of my own.
My teaching poem is excited be finished with undergrad and ready to change lives and reach young people.
My teaching poem is a long-term sub in a class that is not my own, with students who are not my own, in a building that is not my own.
My teaching poem is a new job in a place that is familiar to me, but different because of the new perspective I have on it.
My teaching poem is being hired with two weeks to plan, ask questions, find books, set up a classroom, try to understand what I am supposed to be doing worry that this was all a big mistake, try to find a way out of it.
My teaching poem is a rocky year, but a productive one; hours spent planning, and minutes spent scrambling to find a new plan when the first one failed.
My teaching poem is taking on more responsibility – “Of course I will be the drama sponsor, I have lots of time.”
My teaching poem is being “let go” not because I was a poor teacher, but because we have too many teachers and not enough students – classrooms hold 40 right?
My teaching poem is the same job in July - “We found some room.”
My teaching poem is a brand new year, with brand new classes, brand new students, brand new principal, brand new district name, brand new curriculum guidelines, brand new expectations and the same problems from the year before.
My teaching poem is taking on more responsibility – “Of course I will be the speech and debate sponsor, I have lots of time.”
My teaching poem is a fight between district and union - Who is ready to strike? Who is here for the students? Who knows when we get paid?
My teaching poem is, “Just close your door and teach.”
My teaching poem is another year down, but at least I get to come back.
My teaching poem is a brand new year, with brand new classes, brand new students, brand school schedule, brand new district titles, brand new curriculum maps, brand new expectations and the same problems from the year before.
My teaching poem is tensions between teachers and administrators.
My teaching poem is filling 90 minutes with material I have never taught before.
My teaching poem connections with students I have known for a few years.
My teaching poem is finally understanding what I am supposed to be doing – most of the time.
My teaching poem is plays and speech meets and set building and rehearsals and auditions and afterschool practices and seeing students come alive.
My teaching poem is taking on more responsibility – “Of course I will be the start a graduate program, I have lots of time.”
My teaching poem is grading homework, planning homework, doing homework, hating homework.My teaching poem is “fatigue, boredom, repetition, beat, blasé, spent, played out, sleepy, uninterested, on one’s last legs.”

Response to Fulkerson

Rough drafts are important.
Be ready for your peer reviews on Monday.
Where is your thesis?
What is the point of this paragraph?
Rough drafts are important.
Your peer review should be done before the final draft.
What is this word supposed to be?
Yes you need to have a main point.
Rough drafts are important.
These are the thoughts that were running through my mind as I read this article. This has been my experience with the instruction of composition. I would have to say that most of the composition instruction that takes place at the high school level would fall into the rhetorical category. We have the responsibility of preparing student to be capable of making the leap to a less formal, albeit more interesting, use of the language. Students cannot successfully use language to gain the power that has been denied them, if they are not first taught the rules and procedures that accompany their words. A student may find great release in expressing himself through composition, but he will have a hard time finding a job if he can’t spell his name. We lay the foundation so that future instructors can expand the horizons.

Fulkerson uses the analogy that teachers are like a “coach helping students master a variety of activities.” While I agree with the comparison in some ways, we do train and practice and reinforce skills with our students, I would suggest a different analogy. A coach has the chance to continue working with students. A coach may see the same player for several years. Teachers don’t have that same opportunity. Teachers are more like workers on an assembly line making chairs. This is not to say that we spend our days mindlessly creating little student clones, but rather, we have a limited time to work on our piece of the whole and then we send it along. We get students whose composition skills are rough or nonexistent and we spend a year trying to whittle away the bad habits and polish their strengths. When or time is through, we send them along to someone else on the line. In most cases, we don’t see our pieces again. We may hear about how they are progressing along the line, but we don’t see a finished product. We can only hope that the work that we did with them was enough to prepare them for the next step. It isn’t until they have graduated and left us completely that we will know if they are able to stand. Our spot on the line may not be as complex, or as thought provoking as the critical/cultural studies comp class, but it’s pretty hard to change the world with a wobbly chair.

Why Comp Theory?

Composition is one of the last major concepts that we begin to learn as children. We start off simply with movement and motor skills. Once we are able to move on our own and maneuver in a world full of obstacles, we are ready for more challenging instruction. We learn to speak from the people around us. We can hear words and sounds from our first moments, and eventually we are able to replicate them. We move on. We are taught to count using our fingers and toes. Eventually we move on to more abstract concepts of math, such as dividing a pie or sorting out blocks. Even reading instruction begins at a young age. Doting adults read to us, hopefully, when it is time to sleep, or relax, or just take a breath. Soon we are able to pick up a book on our own and make sense of it. As we gain confidence, the books become larger, and more complicated. We move on. Composition is different. We don't really begin to study composition until much later in life.

For some, the first lessons in writing don't come until we are already well into our elementary school years. We may have been introduced to letters and the sounds they make, but the ideas surrounding how we put these together in order to make sense are still foreign to us. Composition instruction is postponed, I believe, because it is far more abstract than many of the other concepts that we learn. We can see that when we start with three blocks and take one away, we have two blocks remaining. Through practice, we can make an association between the sign "A" and the sound that it makes. Composition requires a higher level of understanding. We have to be able to assimilate an understanding of letters in order to create words, and an understanding of words to create complete sentences. Starting early, we begin to get a basic understanding with the help of our favorite canine - Spot. We compose simple sentences, but may not truly understand them. In my high school classroom, I have to explain the idea of the subject and the verb, arguable the basis of a sentence, on a semi-daily basis. Expanding on our rudimentary understanding of composition and trying to navigate through the pitfalls of rules, and multitude of exceptions to the rules, in the English language requires continued exposure and practice.

At some point we begin to establish an understanding of how we communicate through words, and stand confidently on our ability to master these words and bend them to our will. This belief is usually shattered by a well-meaning, knowledgeable professor who explains to us that words don't really exist, and we are all being deluded into thinking otherwise. This sends us reeling back to an earlier stage and we once again find ourselves crawling and mumbling incoherently. And we move on.