Anxious Irish

Test

Blog

Overdue answer to Marisa

Okay, here is my long overdue rebuttal to Marisa’s post regarding Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson’s comments about women. 

            Firstly, she asked me to take another look at their comments and tell her whether or not they are in fact extreme.  To that I will say, yes, I suppose they are extreme.  But perhaps Pat was being extreme to make a point.  To express that nothing good could come of women pursuing a particular brand of feminism.  I would also remind you Marisa, that my warning to Amelia Poundcake was to be careful labeling Rush and Pat as “extremists” for these comments alone.  What is the context here?  I suppose you would say that the context doesn’t matter, look at the statement.  I think you can make extreme statements without being labeled an extremist though.  And I think people can put their foot in their mouths sometimes also.  Maybe that was a bad statement; of course, maybe not. 

            Next, sorry to disappoint you but I do in fact think that Women’s Lib has something to do with the breakdown of the family.  This breakdown, since you didn’t know what that meant, is in my view when a woman has disengaged from being the central home-maker, and instead chooses to be the common home-liver within her household.  I know this seems like an outmoded point of view, but I believe there is some truth to the existence of a stable and nurturing home when a woman is there to keep the house and everyone in it clean and on schedule.  Now I don’t oppose women working-I myself would be a walking contradiction if I did that.  There’s just something about a family with two or three children, with both parents working full time jobs, and the kids in daycare all the time, sick with colds and flu, that irks me.  If the family can handle it, and the kids are being loved and brought up to be respectful, I guess I don’t see too much of a problem with it.  The only reason I guess I give credence to Pat Robertson’s statement is that he seems to want to defend the “haven” idea of a home.  This idea can be under attack if an honest, caring, scrupulous woman is not behind the scenes protecting what it represents-a place where family comes together and has plenty of time to show love for each other. 

            I realize that my feeling this way--that a woman should maintain a strong presence inside the home--may seem like a contradiction.  After all, I commute an hour and a half to attend college full time.  Although I have no children, I probably do not spend enough time building up my home and husband, or caring for the dog and cat.  All I can say is that there are many contradictions in human nature, and I do not purport to be blameless.  Nor do I support that Rush and Pat are innocent of extreme comments.  But I do say that if these things offend you-go ahead and oppose them.  Just so long as you respect those that don’t think it’s offensive.  If you don’t think their comments are funny, don’t laugh and change the station.  But you can’t say that their opinions should be suppressed, just as I can’t call up O-Rock 105.9 (the Orlando radio station) and say I want them to stop calling their afternoon shows “The Nooner,” and the “The Threesome.”  So to answer your question, what do you do, -- you tolerate it. 

Service Learning Pedagogy

I think service learning pedagogy could be put to good use in part of the semester.  But I think we should also focus on analyzing literary texts to foster students' creativity because this allows them to imagine a world outside reality which, through being part of community involvement, they might see as wraught with seemingly unsolvable social, economic, and political problems.  I know this sounds oversimplified and idealistic, maybe even like turning a blind eye to the problems of society.  But I think focusing on ideal worlds for part of the time can situate the mind in a more balanced and happy place. 

The types of writing assignments mentioned on page 139 would definitely shake us all out of the "academic slumber" in which I find many of my students in 1101.  They do think of me as their only audience, and besides one or two of their peers, their parents, and a yellowing three-prong folder, they're probably right to think so.   This pedagogy offers an opportunity to teach writing as a "real world" skill with practical applications.  I see this as giving students a reason to afford English some relevance in their lives. 

I agree that this benefits students because it offers them a real need to work collaboratively, see writing as a process, read multiple drafts, and meet deadlines that are not teacher-imposed (139).  There is also the fact that they are providing a service to others; it teaches them philanthropy.  I also agree though that this could be construed as bubble-world charity work though. 

So to sum up, the conception of doing charity work may undercut multi-cultural and multi-community awareness by stengthening the different world-ness feel of going "out there" to offer a service.  However, I do think that some service learning projects would be beneficial to helping students see English as a useful discipline meant to influence and communicate with the public.  But I also think there should be remain a literary, private, and reflective part to the English curriculum.     

In response to Amelia Poundcake's feminism

     I enjoyed the quotes you inserted from Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.  However, I would caution you not to call them "extremists" as "speaking from the extreme or far right" or being "uber-conservative."  (Although that prefix "uber" has probably run its course.)  At any rate, my point is that while I am in agreement with you making your students sensitive to gender equity, don't rule out the positives to be found in what you may consider the "frothy-mouthed rants" of male media giants. 

     I'm a woman and I find some of their opinions refreshing.  Notice I said some.  And it might help to look at their language as bull *** that just needs to be laughed off.  There are all kinds of comments I feel should not be said on the radio, that I have to just laugh off.  If I didn't, my brain would erupt from the overload of promiscuous and materialistic vice. 

I wish sometimes that the "breakdown of the family," which some see as an after effect of Women's Lib, could be repaired.  Many women think that staying home to raise kids and clean house is oppressive.  But I say that as long as the women is married to a sensitive and open-minded man, this situation need not be oppressive; the woman can still pursue an education, enjoy friendships and hobbies, take part in her society's culture, etc. 

     Of course, my blog here probably sounds to you like ignorant Christian conservative banter.  But as I always say about these controversial questions, there are valid viewpoints coming from all sides.  All we can strive for, it seems to me, is tolerance. 

An epiphany from Jarratt's Feminist Pedagogy OR Relax, I'm not a man basher now

     I’m very happy to have my skepticism allayed by Jarratt’s rational treatment of Feminist Pedagogy.  (Wow, already in my first sentence I’m using patriarchal/sexist language myself-insinuating that an essay on feminism would have the tendency to be irrational.)  I suppose I have the “backlash” attitude to the word feminist just as her students do.  But what makes this essay so digestible for me is Jarratt’s focus on feminist pedagogy as being a pedagogy of questions rather than practices (124-5).   

 

     There were so many interesting points made in the essay, that I feel all I can do to organize myself is list them:

1.  I have often wondered whether or not men can take part in feminism.  Jarratt acknowledges two schools of thought-the “essentialists” who emphasize the biological differences between man and woman and therefore “cling to a politics of separatism;” and the inclusive school that views “read[ing] differences between men and women as widely variable outcomes of social process of gendering” (117).

2.  Also fascinating to me was Paula Treichler’s summary about the different ways the two sexes communicate.  I am familiar with some of these points of course, but I never thought of considering them in the context of our classrooms.  I am used to hearing that “women respond to problems by sharing experiences, offering reassurances, and giving support; [and] men hear problems as requests for solutions.”  Comedians and marriage counselors talk about this all the time, to wit:  John Gray’s Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.  But I never considered the techniques some women use to insulate themselves from discomfort when speaking in class, especially “raising the pitch of the voice at the end of the statement (turning it into a question)” (120).  I do this all the time!  Aaaaaahhhh! 

3.  The exercise on page 121, which asks students to analyze discourse in their “natural language settings” seems like a fitting and useful exercise for an 1102 in class writing exercises. 

4.  And perhaps most enlightening of all sections came on page 122 when Jarratt points out that some feminists are suggesting that argument, “based in a masculine tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of women’s experiences and ways of making sense of the world” (122).  Suddenly I see clouds bursting with the a million beams of light.  Angels are singing “Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  Hall…E…Lu…Jah!”  Why had I never considered that I have been forced to shape my discourse into a package that may not have worked well for me?  There are so many accommodations our society makes to the individual sexes-different fits of blue jeans, the colors of cell phone plates, the size and style of high school class rings, and many others I can’t think of right now.  I feel so ignorant.  No, I feel duped.  But the only way I can see USF’s FYC program moving away from Writing Arguments and Inventing Arguments, is if I present some alternative viable form.  If I’m serious, I’d better get to work.          

Thinking about Portfolios

     In my research of the rationale and application of student portfolios, I came upon Brian Huot’s article in College English entitled, “Toward a New Discourse of Assessment for the College Writing Classroom.”  (vol. 65, no. 2, Nov. 2002 in JSTOR).  This article went hand in hand with Edward M. White’s article that Moxley gave us regarding the scoring of writing portfolios in that it calls for instructors to view the portfolio as a tool for teaching students how to rhetorically evaluate their own work. 

     Huot calls for a new discourse for assessment because he thinks there is a paradox at work wherein writing instructors are using portfolios “as a coaching and enabling process, while holding on to conceptions of evaluation as a means for gatekeeping and upholding standards” (164).  Huot feels that we should shift the focus of grading student portfolios away from “how well or much they have revised”  (164).  Instead, as called for in White’s article, we should be using portfolios as an opportunity to teach students about self-evaluation and “taking responsibility for their own learning” (White 591).    

     The overall purpose in the article is to call for “assessment as a positive force for the teaching of writing.”  We can view the portfolio as a positive force by “involv[ing] students in all phases of the assessment of their own work” (171).  Doing so makes the portfolio process easier for students to understand, and it allows the portfolio to be shaped in a more productive way for ease of instructor evaluation.   

     Inkeeping with White’s theory, it is our job to help students set rhetorical and linguistic goals for themselves in the course, meet them as best they can, and then evaluate whether or not they met those goals at the end of the semester or program.  Huot claims that portfolio assessment need not be, as Pat Belanoff calls it, “the dirty thing we have to do in the dark of our own offices” (171).

Good Reading-Critical Pedagogy by Ann George

         I have to laugh-and unfortunately agree-that like Ann George, “my teaching often retreats to the level of sporadic creativity or worse, to rather predictable English-teacher experimentation and circling of chairs” (92).  It’s a constant struggle to focus and hold students’ interest on topics upon which they may never have placed any value.  And for that reason criticial/liberatory/radical/empowering pedagogy, in which classroom democracy allows for student selected texts, assignments, by-laws, values, and learning objectives, etc. is interest-piquing. 

I agree that there exist “unequal power relations” in colleges in universities (USF included, of course), but with the exception of some private schools and liberal arts colleges, I don’t believe there will ever be anything done about it.  How can there be with the emphasis on skills and standardization, which is how employers judge whether or not a graduate is employable and potential-filled?  So in a way, I think radical pedagogy is unfeasible because it goes against the traditional “power model” of teacher (with more knowledge) passing on to student (with less knowledge) the skills and ideas essential for employment.  By allowing students to shape their learning environment, there is the risk that students will not “teach themselves” the “correct” skills. 

I am inclined to agree with Jeff Smith in his essay “Students’ Goals, Gatekeeping, and Some Questions of Ethics” because as Ann George summarizes, teachers “should honor students’ professed desires to get the credentials needed to secure professional-managerial jobs.”  In his essay, Smith claims that, “we are ethically bound by students’ own aims, even if those aims seem uncomfortably close to elite values” (101). 

But Ira Shor’s disgust with community colleges resonates with me as well.  He argues that “their vocational curricula trains students to follow orders and accept subordinate roles in society” (95).  So as always, I think there has to be a balance formed.  I think we at USF should practice some aspects of “radical” and “empowering” pedagogy, but balance it with the traditional notion that teachers really do have more experience with the academic environment, and so can offer useful leadership.   

A few thoughts on George and Trimbur

     It seems to me that George and Trimbur’s article is dense without being rich.  They don’t keep the tacit promise made to the reader by answering the questions they pose in the conclusion of the first paragraph:  “what is cultural studies anyway, where does it come from, what does it want, what does it do…” (71).  They only answer the part of the question they are concerned with-“why has it become…a source of anxiety and contention?” by harping on “the depleted exchange value of continental high theory…” (71).  And to tell the truth, I can’t even decode what that answer is.  I just know that it’s part of the discussion.  The essay focuses on some history of capitalist and Marxist thinking, but fails to tie the history into the study of composition for the reader.      

     The essay raises one good point-cultural studies in composition tends to focus on “mass communication and popular culture” (74).  This is problematic to some writing teachers because while it has Western students analyzing their own environment of modernity, it places them inside the box all over again, as cultural studies is meant to address the study of many different cultures. 

In Agreement with Moody

     I just read David Moody’s post about this week’s essay in Composition Pedagogies, and I have to give Moody his propers for being bold enough to say what I could only express in private fantasies of hurling the book into a burn barrel.  “Cultural Studies and Composition” was nearly as difficult for me to digest as the notorious “Rhetorical Pedagogy” by Covino a few weeks ago.  I agree with Moody’s stating of the problem: that these readings consist of “a heated inspection of the origins of a pedagogy followed by the chronological evolution of its usage, and a conclusion that states something along the lines of "and now we can only wait and see what is in store.” 

     I can understand why the authors end on this note because, as I learned in my undergraduate years, the answer to every question asked in college is that there is no answer.  In other words, there is a myriad number of viewpoints and circumstances to consider on all issues, so we can never declare the existence of one “correct” or all-encompassing answer.

     Moody also makes the point that theory is valued over practicality in scholarly writing.  I believe it was Moxley who mentioned in the Practicum that very few of our readings will be like Bean’s “Coaching the Writing Process and Handling the Paper Load.”  This is terribly unfortunate in my opinion.  I think that discussions of theory should take a back seat to practical concerns this early on in our careers.  While I know that I can’t continue to excuse myself from pedagogical discussions on grounds I’m a newbie, and I don’t want to be looked upon as an amateur lacking the capacity to comprehend complex essays-I want some news I can use.  These must just be growing pains that I have to accept as part of the process of graduate level learning.  But I think it’s a bit of an injustice that it has to be this way. 

Collaborative Pedagogy: an essay I can get on board with

I was pleased to find that Moore-Howard’s essay on collaborative pedagogy was practical-similar to “Coaching the Writing Process and Handling the Paper Load” by Bean.  I can appreciate the brevity and clarity of her introduction to collaborative pedagogy theories as well as the classroom suggestions that come from her being a veteran collaborative “facilitator.” 

 

Moore-Howard raises some relevant questions about employing collaborative pedagogy:  how can teachers project the role of facilitator over that of judge?  What are some vehicles for invoking collaboration?  How should student work be graded?  I honestly agree with many of Moore-Howard’s answers to these questions.  For example, teachers should steer class discussion away from “right or wrong” answers and assign grades to groups as a whole, not individuals.    

 

Charlotte Thralls’s position that all writing is collaborative seemed at first to be a stretch of the imagination-the blanket statement of a freethinking theorist.  But after consideration, I can see Thralls makes a valid point in arguing that writers work collaboratively by considering their anticipated audience, the community in which they write (with its conventions and parameters), and the sources that influenced them (55).  After all, writers are interacting with readers and other authors regardless if the exchange is asynchronous.    

 

It seems a shame that writing centers are under scrutiny for their collaboration on student writing.  I can state from experience that our own writing center does not warrant some teachers’ fear that the tutors “‘do’ their writing for them.”  On the contrary, I once became so frustrated with a tutor’s subjection of my work to the Socratic Method that I wondered if he was trying to be helpful at all.  Did they want me to give up so they could go for a cigarette break? 

 

I agree that Western tradition places the laurel wreath on the head of the “solitary author.”  But I have to give credence to a reason Moore-Howard offers for why collaborative writing hasn’t caught on-“the entire educational institution predicates its judgements on individual performance-collaborative writing pedagogies seem foreign and fraught with peril” (62). 

My aversion to rhetoric

Brian’s annotation of “The Cultures of Literature and Composition:  What Could Each Learn from the Other?” by Peter Elbow discusses a topic I have been thinking about since we held the FYC training sessions in August.  I didn’t know exactly how to identify what was bothering me about the Composition curriculum at the time.  But the opinions Elbow offers here helped me gain a more clearly defined idea of “what didn’t feel right” to me. 

 

And I think my issue is with ENC 1102 being focused on arguments.  I feel an aversion to the terms ethos, pathos, and logos.  They make me think of Plato and Aristotle, and I really hate when I have to think about those two.  Defining rhetorical strategies has never been what I envisioned for my English classes; to me, this activity belongs within the confines of a philosophy, political science, or debate course.  Of course, it should be bared in mind that my feelings about rhetoric and arguments are gut reactions, as I have not yet taught ENC 1102.  I suppose I am approaching the curriculum from the perspective of my having been a creative writing major.  Like Elbow though, I want to make a place for “subtlety, humor, and wit” in Composition.  I want to allow students the employment of “imaginative and metaphorical language” in their essays. 

 

However, I think it should be acknowledged that freshman students may not make practical use of these things yet.  Students would probably become distracted with this type of freedom (think attempts at coming off as clever rather than articulating serious reflections in a clever way).  The academic essay would morph into a personality showcase.  I’m sure I am generalizing about both views.  And I am probably not giving a fair shake to the basics of rhetorical analysis and logic.  But I just don’t like those words.      

Response to Chef-Chick's "Right to Write Badly" annotation

Spandel, Vicki. “The Right to Write Badly.” The 9 Rights of Every Writer: A Guide for Teachers. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2005. 63-77. There were two especially powerful statements in this article that I could agree with: "writing students and writing teachers [need] to respect, enjoy, and welcome their mistakes," and that they need to "practice more writing rather than fostering harsh assessments..." I can see how the strategy of enjoying mistakes in writing would encourage students' ability and take the focus off of grades. Being able to relax and know there is always next draft, probably allows room for improvement and creativity. Taking the focus off of "correctness" touches on a theme I have always considered to be at the forefront of English-that the subject is an art. In fact, my own middle and high school courses were titled "Language Arts." I think we probably have to evaluate work in English differently because it isn't based in scientific, mathematical, or historical fact. For example, if you light a match and drop it into a puddle of gas at the pump, combustion occurs. If someone writes an essay, nothing necessarily results. Also, I never considered that "students acquire shame and embarrassment in school because they are expected to be more god-like in their writing process and its ultimate product." The statement seems dramatic to me. I'm not sure I buy into this opinion, but this could be because I was blessed with supportive English teachers who never made spectacle of my writing errors. Excellent work on the annotation Chef-Chick.

Response to Lina's annotated bib.

Biggs Chaney, Sarah. “Study of Teacher Error: Misreading Resistance in the Basic Writing Classroom.” Journal of Basic Writing vol. 23 spring 2004: 25-38 Lina did an excellent job in seeking out such a compelling journal article here. And her summary is concise and easy to read. While reading Lina's entry, I stopped several times to make notes on my reactions to Biggs Chaney's unfolding story of her student, Amber. My initial reaction, as I would later read was Biggs Chaney's, was to advise Amber (the student)to head off for trade school if she'd rather fill in cavities than write essays about it. But then as Biggs Chaney did, I realized the wonderful paradox of the situation-that by Amber writing a vehement argument against esay writing, she was writing a terrific essay! I think Biggs Chaney handled the situation tactfully, encouraging Amber to continue with her arguments against what she considers to be an ineffective curriculum. And sadly, I too was shocked to learn that Amber had plagiarized much of her final exam. I could sympathize with Biggs Chaney for having endured such betrayal. If Amber really did write the initial essay against essays, and she had the talent for argument, laziness really could be the only explanation for her unethical work on the final exam.

The Value of Flexibility

While I was thoroughly prepared to accept student drafts of Project 1, conduct peer review, introduce the Annotated Bibliography assignment, and field student questions this past Friday, I feel the class momentum still slipped away from me.  Many students had questions about Project 1 that I had not anticipated, such as “What exactly is the assignment again?” and “What if I didn’t bring three copies?”  Instead of indulging my disappointment and scowling at them, I rolled with it. 

I took ten minutes of class time to show the assignment on screen for them and settle questions once and for all.  The students told me they felt better about the assignment after that.  But they felt that while peer review was helpful, they still wanted my detailed feedback because they were worried about their grades (I had been tough on their Best Class essays at the start).  So I took their concerns to mean that they were unclear about my expectations for their writing.  Now I don’t believe we’re supposed to hide our critiquing methods, so I slapped my essay grading form on the overhead projector.  And I later explained that I wanted to discourage fear of low grades, but rather encourage them to learn how they can improve.  They were not to become obsessed with point values, but the items associated with them. 

I felt the need to be flexible.  We looked at the detailed schedule as a class and decided we should bump up the conferences we had previously scheduled.  The fact that my students seemed disoriented when I felt we had adequately discussed the assignment parameters made me wonder if I had been allowing enough time for questions.  After moving the conferences up, the class seemed to let out a collective, rejuvenated exhale. 

So it seems that one on one sessions will help calibrate our understanding of the class objectives.  While I had assumed the students felt as comfortable as I did about the way things were running, now I will find out for sure, and be able to make necessary improvements. 

 

Response to Student/GA Relationships

I'd like to respond to Fantasy Writer's (Darcy's?) post regarding student/teacher relationships and respect.  I too am a "young" teaching assistant.  I've substituted for middle school and high school, so I am aware of the discipline problems and lack of respect to which she refers.  However, I am not experiencing the dilemmas posed by Fantasy Writer. 

I would agree that it is uncommon for young female teachers to command the same respect as their male counterparts.  Moxley pointed out that unfortunate reality last week in the Practicum.  And I understand that the closeness in age between us and our students can feel awkward at times.  However, I find that personally separating myself from the students is easy because I remember that I have a life of my own filled with friends, family, peers, and superiors outside the door of that classroom.  I put aside my sensitivities to age, physical appearance, social anxieties, etc. and focus on the activities we are doing in class and the improvement of the students' abilities.  Of course, I dress conservatively and have them address me as Mrs. Tully-even in e-mails; some students opened with "Hey!" so I nipped that right in the bud. 

Here is a recent example of how I separated myself from their attempt to pull me out of my role as "the teacher."  I showed students a clip from Saturday Night Live where Will Ferrell imitates Robert Lipton from Inside the Actor's Studio.  The clip was part of a discussion on personal interviews designed to complement their experience interviewing people for our first project on Biography.  However, the students thought I was "giving them a break" from our regularly-scheduled classwork.  They laughed and were seemed surprised to find that I would show them footage of well-known comedians.  They tried to get me off topic, asking me if we could watch another video, and just do that the whole class period.  But my reaction was to give a quick laugh along with them, so they know I'm not a hard-nose, but then point out the utility of the clip.  I related the humor in the skit to the possible incorporation of humor into their own interviews.  I was able to draw them back into the lesson.  So I feel there is a way of simultaneously being "cool" and on task as a teacher.

I suppose I've strayed from Fantasy Writer's concerns.  I'm sorry for that.  But I hope the angle I present will give some help.