While students have had a tendency to view the writing process as singular (that is writing the paper once and revising a word or two here and there), it is a process that should take place in a series of rewrites and revisions. While most students I have encountered never feel the need to rewrite a paper, it is part of the process of conveying the intended message in writing. So often students fall victim into believing that rewriting denotes that they did not achieve their goal in their first write, but in order to develop as quality writers they must advance their understanding of writing appeals in order to appreciate rewriting as a part of the process leading to the final product.
It is however, difficult to get students acclimated with the idea of rewriting, regardless of the benefits it presents. Once completing their initial draft of an assignment, they find comfort in knowing that they have achieved the objective of the assignment and worry little about producing anything beyond that. As Sommers explains, students are blind “to what constitutes good writing altogether…Students need to seek the dissonance of discovery, utilizing their writing, as the experienced writers do, the very difference between writing and speech – the possibility of revision” (Sommers 387).
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Individuality
Understanding that American society is rapidly increasing in diversity, it becomes essential to incorporate diverse approaches into the classroom by encouraging students to maintain a sense of individuality. As Shen simply states in The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition, “Be yourself.” Shen’s discourse is of great value to minority groups, with commonly nontraditional grammatical and usage backgrounds which encompasses many of those in the California educational system. Two approaches that Shen describes in depth are illogical and alogical patterns in writing. Using this system, which requires comparison of native discourse or learned writing to traditional forms of English writing, lead to understanding the difference between “native ability to create and comprehend English utterances” and “the preferred pattern of writing in English” (Lindeman, 66; Shen, 463).
Berlin
I think Berlin goes a bit far to assert that new rhetoric is the most intelligent approach for teaching writing. He provides an analysis of other theoretical approaches, highlighting the inconsistencies pointing out that rhetoricians like Aristotle have perceptions that are no longer relevant. I think Berlin is too linear in his argument because different approaches are beneficial for different situations. In a one dimensional world, Yes, one approach may be the answer for all. But in our world with so many colorful layers, it is important to remain open-minded about the possibilities of diversity and difference. Although Berlin so clearly favors the new rhetorical approach, there are other equally valid “intellectual” approaches that can be applied just as effectively.
Sommers: Response & Revision
“…teachers' comments can take students' attention away from their own purposes in writing a particular text and focus that attention on the teachers' purpose in commenting.” (Sommers 150)
Having worked in education for the past seven years, I have never before considered my students’ perceptions of what I wrote on their papers. I have always pointed out the mistakes of which I thought they should already be aware (either introduced in my class or in a required prerequisite) and graded them based on that. Rubrics distributed at the beginning of the school year are expected to be utilized in giving the students information on how I will grade their work. However, honest my comments, Sommers article has raised some questions which force me to reevaluate how I respond to student writing. I want my students to remain motivated without the fear of being ridiculed for their writing.
Sommers’ article on revision explores the process as one which builds upon what is already there, reproduction of existing writing. My prewrites generally take place in the form of outlines. Once prior to writing a paper my outline maps out the manner in which I will present the information. After writing my paper, I reread it for fluency and correct any grammatical, structural, reference, etc. mistakes that I discover. I also rearrange, add, and delete in order to make the paper flow smoothly. Sometimes, I ask a peer to read my work and ask the meaning as well as recommended changes to the content presented.
However, after going through the process of writing the literacy autobiography I find that the revision process which Sommers breaks down in her article is a more effective manner of writing. During the literacy autobiography process, we completed a number of invention activities which aided in developing ideas, some of which were more useful than others in constructing my discourse. My revision process now includes a process of producing various drafts of the same piece of work leading to the final product, which had been enhanced with each rewrite into a much higher quality final product.
Having worked in education for the past seven years, I have never before considered my students’ perceptions of what I wrote on their papers. I have always pointed out the mistakes of which I thought they should already be aware (either introduced in my class or in a required prerequisite) and graded them based on that. Rubrics distributed at the beginning of the school year are expected to be utilized in giving the students information on how I will grade their work. However, honest my comments, Sommers article has raised some questions which force me to reevaluate how I respond to student writing. I want my students to remain motivated without the fear of being ridiculed for their writing.
Sommers’ article on revision explores the process as one which builds upon what is already there, reproduction of existing writing. My prewrites generally take place in the form of outlines. Once prior to writing a paper my outline maps out the manner in which I will present the information. After writing my paper, I reread it for fluency and correct any grammatical, structural, reference, etc. mistakes that I discover. I also rearrange, add, and delete in order to make the paper flow smoothly. Sometimes, I ask a peer to read my work and ask the meaning as well as recommended changes to the content presented.
However, after going through the process of writing the literacy autobiography I find that the revision process which Sommers breaks down in her article is a more effective manner of writing. During the literacy autobiography process, we completed a number of invention activities which aided in developing ideas, some of which were more useful than others in constructing my discourse. My revision process now includes a process of producing various drafts of the same piece of work leading to the final product, which had been enhanced with each rewrite into a much higher quality final product.
Recchio
Thomas Recchio writes of the multilevel analysis which can be applied to critically reading text and discourse. It is interesting to know that students possess meta-narratives and are completely unaware of it. This seems like something that is appropriate for the type of writing proposed by Bartholomae in “Inventing the University” but I find it difficult to understand how this can be applied to students who are struggling with very basic levels of reading comprehension and composition who often end up in beginning English courses. While I think that the paper definitely contains they can be woven together in order to accurately convey the intent in the paper to the reader. I like Recchio’s final comments because they give the author the necessary feedback which can either be used to correct this paper or applied to another paper.
Grammar
As I approach the issues facing students studying English on the college level as well as reflecting on my own experiences as an English student, there are two main components I want would like to stress to my students: understanding grammar and its application and individual expression as academically appropriate. Some strategies will promote confidence while others will ensure that my students have a strong English foundation upon exiting my class. My classroom will encompass conventional English and Language Arts through alternative discourse while also ensuring student’s knowledge of traditional form. As Erika Lindemann describes in Rhetoric for Writing Teachers “Many people link usage to standard English, implying that there’s an absolute right and wrong way to use the [English] language” (67). My English pedagogy comes from this notion but with the goal of providing students an understanding of grammar. My goal is for students to walk away from my class having obtained the skills toward becoming successful writers using their own approach and creativity in the process. Students will also explore English grammar and usage to develop an understanding of English and Language Arts variations. “Their investigation… also will increase their tolerance for varieties of English” (Lindeman, 69). The stress is always on academic discourse as students understand the conventions of language and writing, yet there is also an emphasis on individuality as students assert themselves through their writing. My course will enable students to develop what Fan Shen refers to as an “English Identity.”
Understanding that as American society is rapidly increasing in diversity, it becomes essential to incorporate diverse approaches into the classroom by encouraging students to maintain a sense of individuality. As Shen simply states in The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition, “Be yourself.” Shen’s discourse is of great value to minority groups, with commonly nontraditional grammatical and usage backgrounds which encompasses many of those in the California educational system. One approach that Shen describes in depth are illogical and alogical patterns in writing. Using this system, which requires comparison of native discourse or learned writing to traditional forms of English writing, lead to understanding the difference between “native ability to create and comprehend English utterances” and “the preferred pattern of writing in English” (Lindeman, 66; Shen, 463).
Grammar in my classroom will be generative-transformative. Branching away from the traditional approaches to grammar as a mathematical formula, the generative-transformative model teaches the process of “creating sentences” (Lindeman, 82). In aligning grammar instruction with the writing process as a whole, it is important to foster students’ abilities to create as is presented in the generative-transformative model of teaching grammar.
Incorporating grammar and writing will take place through peer-centered, individual, and whole group activities. Incorporating oral speech into my classes is one manner which I plan to provide an understanding of grammar. I plan to use oral activities for students to analyze grammar idiolects within the classroom, demonstrating an understanding of the numerous forms in which grammar may exist in society. Hartwell explains the importance of applying multipurpose literacy rather than “single static literacy” (Hartwell 124).
It is Hartwell’s explanation of grammar studies that I will strive to achieve in my own class. “Writers need to develop skills at two levels. One… involves communication in meaningful content. The other… involves active manipulation of language with conscious attention to surface form” (Hartwell, 125). Upon exiting my class, students will have confidence in their writing while maintaining their individual thinking and grammatical conception. They will internalize their skills toward producing oral and written communication that incorporates rhetorical competencies and metalinguistics that can be used academically and socially (Hartwell 125).
Understanding that as American society is rapidly increasing in diversity, it becomes essential to incorporate diverse approaches into the classroom by encouraging students to maintain a sense of individuality. As Shen simply states in The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition, “Be yourself.” Shen’s discourse is of great value to minority groups, with commonly nontraditional grammatical and usage backgrounds which encompasses many of those in the California educational system. One approach that Shen describes in depth are illogical and alogical patterns in writing. Using this system, which requires comparison of native discourse or learned writing to traditional forms of English writing, lead to understanding the difference between “native ability to create and comprehend English utterances” and “the preferred pattern of writing in English” (Lindeman, 66; Shen, 463).
Grammar in my classroom will be generative-transformative. Branching away from the traditional approaches to grammar as a mathematical formula, the generative-transformative model teaches the process of “creating sentences” (Lindeman, 82). In aligning grammar instruction with the writing process as a whole, it is important to foster students’ abilities to create as is presented in the generative-transformative model of teaching grammar.
Incorporating grammar and writing will take place through peer-centered, individual, and whole group activities. Incorporating oral speech into my classes is one manner which I plan to provide an understanding of grammar. I plan to use oral activities for students to analyze grammar idiolects within the classroom, demonstrating an understanding of the numerous forms in which grammar may exist in society. Hartwell explains the importance of applying multipurpose literacy rather than “single static literacy” (Hartwell 124).
It is Hartwell’s explanation of grammar studies that I will strive to achieve in my own class. “Writers need to develop skills at two levels. One… involves communication in meaningful content. The other… involves active manipulation of language with conscious attention to surface form” (Hartwell, 125). Upon exiting my class, students will have confidence in their writing while maintaining their individual thinking and grammatical conception. They will internalize their skills toward producing oral and written communication that incorporates rhetorical competencies and metalinguistics that can be used academically and socially (Hartwell 125).
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
To the Spring Class of 575…
Hopefully some of you are still tuning into the blog post, or some have already turned in their final projects and left this course behind. Either way, I wanted to bid this class a fair adieu. As we head off into our summer vacations, I am astonished at the people I have come in contact with over the semester. This class helped me to see where I could define myself in the terms of academic discourse. To sum it all up I am an expressivists, new rhetorician, contact zone, voice searching, and mechanics unraveling fool. I side with the expressivists who believe in voice as a writer’s primary concern. I see Bizzell’s connection to the contact zone as a place for self discovery, and acceptance in the classroom. I follow Lindemann’s model of grading papers, and judging on merit and not just mechanics. I hear Royster when she speaks to voice being present, and not a singular process. And I side with Reechico when he speaks to taking a Bahktian approach to reading and grading students papers. With all of the information that was presented to us during this class, I can see how rhetoric and discourse is coming to a point where, the more explore, the better chances are students will have. To have all of these essays at our disposal, I am confident that I can approach teaching in new ways, that dispel and accept some of theorist that we have read.
Being removed from education for some time, and I am glad we had an opportunity to have this opportunity to have an open dialoguge towads ours philoshpy of teaching. The blog was resourceful and often time encouraging way for me to read and understand the texts we were assigned. Thank you to all who contributed, and all who even stepped out and posted their own individual work. Good luck in all of your future endeavors.
Being removed from education for some time, and I am glad we had an opportunity to have this opportunity to have an open dialoguge towads ours philoshpy of teaching. The blog was resourceful and often time encouraging way for me to read and understand the texts we were assigned. Thank you to all who contributed, and all who even stepped out and posted their own individual work. Good luck in all of your future endeavors.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Villanueva and Royster
Rhetoric of Racism is an intriguing and enlightening read that challenges my concept of what multiculturalism in the classroom actually is. I like that Villanueva began with a historical approach with the Aztecs and the Spanish to demonstrate the consequences of forced assimilation. We tend to think of rhetoric and composition in the terms of ancient times (Aristotle, Plato, etc.) and modern times. Rarely do we stop to think about the impact of rhetoric on this country's early history. Anyway, back to the point. Villanueva states that there is no "reverse discrimination" to make things equal, and the statistics speak: 64% of Latinos never graduate high school. Granted, this was published in 1999, so the statistics might be older, however as a teacher on the front lines with this demographic, I can say this statistic has not changed much. I think and still believe that they don't value education, however Villanueva seems to think this is a colonialist point of view. I think my students would value education a lot more if they could see the doors it would open for them. So are they just content with their lives? Are we the racist ones for telling them that they should want something better? Sometimes I am not sure.
I also enjoyed the analogy that the U.S. is like the parent to Latin America, the 'child' and that somehow they should revere the U.S. for their guidance and showing them the 'way'. We really do sound pompous and its easy to see why so many other countries hate us. As for his analogy of the Mexican philosopher and the French philosopher holding more weight, I have to say the French and for a good cause: Generally speaking, more French than Mexicans are formally educated, and with the exception of Mexico City, we tend to think of Mexico as a whole to be a corrupt, drug infested country that doesn't believe in democracy or education for its people. France is associated with education, aristocracy, art, cuisine, democracy, and liberalism. Until that changes, the association will stick. I'm all for change, but until non-colonialist voices step up and educate themselves no one will take their trend-bucking seriously, and unfortunately that is the society we live in. The intelligent students in my class are ruthlessly made fun of. There's a stigma with being smart, with bringing books to class, and doing work. Its not 'cool'. I don't know how to change that attitude, and being an outsider to their culture, I don't feel it is my place to do it.
As far as Royster, I feel she makes many valid points about voice. We can not assume just because someone lives amongst another culture and observes, that they are justified to somehow report on it. She states, "I have come to recognize that when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted." It must be incredibly irritating to read something about being black from someone who is not black or even a part of that culture. Someone who is speaking for you, but doesn't have a right to. "We must be trained to respect points of view other than our own." Perception is everything, and being aware of your surroundings and where you stand as the subject position is important for conveying information. I also agree with Royster's call for respect, codes of behavior, and manners when it comes to the field of composition studies. Even if intentions are good, sometimes the way something is written, be it the voice or a connotation, it can come off as condescending.
I also enjoyed the analogy that the U.S. is like the parent to Latin America, the 'child' and that somehow they should revere the U.S. for their guidance and showing them the 'way'. We really do sound pompous and its easy to see why so many other countries hate us. As for his analogy of the Mexican philosopher and the French philosopher holding more weight, I have to say the French and for a good cause: Generally speaking, more French than Mexicans are formally educated, and with the exception of Mexico City, we tend to think of Mexico as a whole to be a corrupt, drug infested country that doesn't believe in democracy or education for its people. France is associated with education, aristocracy, art, cuisine, democracy, and liberalism. Until that changes, the association will stick. I'm all for change, but until non-colonialist voices step up and educate themselves no one will take their trend-bucking seriously, and unfortunately that is the society we live in. The intelligent students in my class are ruthlessly made fun of. There's a stigma with being smart, with bringing books to class, and doing work. Its not 'cool'. I don't know how to change that attitude, and being an outsider to their culture, I don't feel it is my place to do it.
As far as Royster, I feel she makes many valid points about voice. We can not assume just because someone lives amongst another culture and observes, that they are justified to somehow report on it. She states, "I have come to recognize that when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted." It must be incredibly irritating to read something about being black from someone who is not black or even a part of that culture. Someone who is speaking for you, but doesn't have a right to. "We must be trained to respect points of view other than our own." Perception is everything, and being aware of your surroundings and where you stand as the subject position is important for conveying information. I also agree with Royster's call for respect, codes of behavior, and manners when it comes to the field of composition studies. Even if intentions are good, sometimes the way something is written, be it the voice or a connotation, it can come off as condescending.
Monday, May 9, 2011
How Do We Create the Space of Everyone Being Heard
While reading Villanueva’s article I couldn’t help but pull out my highlighter and embark on a marking rampage. Pretty soon my article looked like a fluorescent pink art piece. I circled, wrote notes, underlined quotes for questions in class, and I had to ask myself, what about this article creates this drive to know more? Some of the articles in the class I can say haven’t really resonated with how I think I see myself as a teacher. Like Dr. Cauthen mentioned, some of the readings are a little dense. That however, hasn’t stopped me from finding pieces that I felt I could use, and intend to utilize the techniques in my future classrooms. But, one of the topics that Villanueva touched on is that what our field needs to embrace and welcome minority students, is the journals and articles. This idea of representation is hard to find in some of the articles that we are presented with. While reading the statistics (no matter how dated they may be) had me thinking is that what I have to look forward to? Never being heard in our field? I am sure the numbers have grown, and minority representation has grown within the CCCC and NCTE, but what does that mean for our students? Are their voices being heard in the classroom? Are we producing teachers that include Native American authors in their classroom? The canon has expanded over the years, but are we putting some of these things to use? How can we do this, with such a short time in a school semester and have an impact that our students can take with them in their future English Comp classes? Where does it begin? We hear success stories in our class about teachers who have had some success with including alternative discourse in their classroom, but we have to find ways to use these things across the board. I know the classics are pushed for students to learn and understand, but what is the definition of a classic? I have so many questions because I am beginning to see that this idea of “discourse” has left us with so many opened ended questions and answers. There is a hierarchy of what is acceptable in a classroom and what is not. Who responds to certain type of teaching and the zones in which they are dissecting information? It has been broken down to a science, but this idea of multiculturalism is frowned upon. As a minority student I do find myself from trying to see the racism in certain types of discourse or literature. I try to not make things a race issue. But unfortunately I see myself as Black; I wake up every day and see my reflection. I also see myself as a human, but as I am walking this Earth in America I am a black American, and I have things to say on the subject. My experience as Black in America has validity, so I should be able to conjure, and draw on these experiences in my writing. But I do get the feeling when we bring up race in some classrooms the looks from some of the non-minority students are not this again…..
I guess it might be too much to ask to have this free flowing utopia of discourse where everyone is politically correct, and no one is offended or questioned for their beliefs. But Villanueva says there is a place for everyone to be heard. I don’t think the subject of racism, multiculturalism can ever be overdone. We see that these issues are reinventing themselves, they are presented in less obvious ways. The challenge I think now comes with having enough articles that can be used in classroom to show students that this is an issue that concerns other in literature. And making our students feel stifled for making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to race in the classroom or their writing.
I guess it might be too much to ask to have this free flowing utopia of discourse where everyone is politically correct, and no one is offended or questioned for their beliefs. But Villanueva says there is a place for everyone to be heard. I don’t think the subject of racism, multiculturalism can ever be overdone. We see that these issues are reinventing themselves, they are presented in less obvious ways. The challenge I think now comes with having enough articles that can be used in classroom to show students that this is an issue that concerns other in literature. And making our students feel stifled for making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to race in the classroom or their writing.
Take a Ride Into the Contact Zone
After reading Bizzell's "Contact Zones," I thought about the curriculum for English majors. A lot of the curriculum involves British literature, Medieval literature, Renaissance literature, and American literature written from an Anglo-American perspective. Yes, there are some classes that discuss transnational issues, novels written by minorities, gays or lesbians, feminists, but such classes lag behind (in quantity) the more popular forms of literature mentioned above. This might not be the case at every school, but in general I think it's true. Though Bizzell doesn't make these claims directly, I feel as though they are underlying themes to her description of the the old system of English studies. There should be more emphasis on the multicultural reality of America in English studies. As it is, the contact zone, "where social spaces," and "cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths is not inclusive enough" in the academy (166). Though change is occurring in English studies, I don't believe it's at a point yet (and I'm basing this on the criteria for an English degree at universities, at least at CSUDH and CSULB) where the idea of inclusiveness does justice to the multicultural aspect of America. Again, Bizzell isn't making these claims directly, at least not as blatantly as her belief that "English studies" should be organized "not in terms of literary or chronological periods, nor essentialized racial or gender categories, but rather in terms of historically defined contact zones, moments when different groups within the society contend for the power to interpret what is going on" (165). I believe a more comprehensive study of the multicultural aspect of America is necessary to accomplish her goal.
The Contact Zone
We live and teach in a multicultural area. In our classrooms, our students come from various ethnicities, cultures, family values and conventions. As Lu states, we should attempt to have a multicultural approach to student writing. Since our classrooms become a “contact zone,” we need to create a space where various cultures “clash, and grapple with each other.” In our discussion last week, many of us respect and allow differences in opinions and ideas; but how do we create a “contact zone” where we induce and trigger the classes (constructively, of course)? According to Lu, we must teach students to question and conflict with ideas found in writing. We must begin by guiding a classroom in discussions which “enable students to hear discursive voices…negotiate a position…consider their choice of opinion.” Easy enough, right? But how do we incorporate these into writing? Is content more important than convention? Or is this “contact zone” only for brainstorming and discussion? Maybe a first draft? My fear is often that students cannot code switch (I hope that is the right term), in which they fossilize their errors, whether it be in thinking or writing. Although I understand the need to negotiate and provide more choices for students, when is the line crossed when we may be hindering the future of our students because there is a right and wrong, isn’t there?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Subject Positions
“Subject position is everything”, I like that notion because it brings so many things to the table (Royster 30). I think of race, class, and age when I think of subject position and of parallax. Depending on the angle, everything looks different and if one makes decisions based on one view of an object then that decision can be labeled as skewed. I think this resonates within my understanding of the world, I notice that being in charge has a lot to do with and are based on the amount of power, of property, and the place in society that we are in. Jacquelin Jones Royster in “When the First Voice You Hear is not Your Own” argues for a curriculum that places all views in a position of power and that students be allowed to ask questions and I agree with her. I’m a very inquisitive person and hate it when my questions are ignored or viewed in an oppressive form. I feel that by following the golden rule and allowing students to generate a voice for themselves, that a better world can be achieved. But utopia is never going to be the answer because that simply means that everything that grants us our differences is ignored and the voice that so many of us fight for will be marginalized in much of the same way that it already is. I think that taking someone’s identity, in all its forms, and keeping an open mind can help bridge some of the gaps that society has set in place for many of us with a disadvantaged position.
Binary Opposition
After reading Elizabeth A. Flynn's "Composing as a Woman," it evoked an awareness that men and women compose differently. Honestly, I have never given it much thought.
There are parts of the essay that I agree with in terms of the examples that Flynn illustrates,
(where the first group of friends who have the experience in riding in a hot air balloon). She deducts that "Women who are connected knowers are able to detach themselves from the relationships and institutions to which they have they have been subordinated and begin to trust their own intuitions" (428). I believe that this describes the method that I use in order to compose. Also, when I write, I feel that in some respect there is a detachment (in my ability to participate in the act of writing itself), but also structures in which all students must write. I have never attributed binary opposition as a way in which to explain difference and affinity in composition. Yes, I believe that women are wired very differently than men, so I suppose why their writing shoud not be also?
I appreciate this essay by Flynn, because it opens up the possibility for further discourse. Personally I believethat I exhibit personalities of both the male and female writers. I can feel connected, and allow my individual freedom to dictate my prose, but I can also become isolated and competitive, and I want my writing to be the best and anything less than perfection is failure. It brings up an interesting question. If patriarchy is presented in composition, and if so, how do men and women arrive on equal foooting?
There are parts of the essay that I agree with in terms of the examples that Flynn illustrates,
(where the first group of friends who have the experience in riding in a hot air balloon). She deducts that "Women who are connected knowers are able to detach themselves from the relationships and institutions to which they have they have been subordinated and begin to trust their own intuitions" (428). I believe that this describes the method that I use in order to compose. Also, when I write, I feel that in some respect there is a detachment (in my ability to participate in the act of writing itself), but also structures in which all students must write. I have never attributed binary opposition as a way in which to explain difference and affinity in composition. Yes, I believe that women are wired very differently than men, so I suppose why their writing shoud not be also?
I appreciate this essay by Flynn, because it opens up the possibility for further discourse. Personally I believethat I exhibit personalities of both the male and female writers. I can feel connected, and allow my individual freedom to dictate my prose, but I can also become isolated and competitive, and I want my writing to be the best and anything less than perfection is failure. It brings up an interesting question. If patriarchy is presented in composition, and if so, how do men and women arrive on equal foooting?
Villanueva – Rhetorics of Racism
I found this piece to be of interest, at lot of what Villanueva has to say makes me think about my experiences as a teacher. For example, his point that “[a]lthough segregation by race is no longer legal, there is an eco-nomic segregation, a white and middle-class flight from inner cities that relegates African American and Latino students to schools that lack a strong tax base and are thereby poorly funded” (Martinez 7), really stood out to me. When I started my career as a teacher, I elected to teach at a high school in South Central Los Angeles. I expected the school to be poorly funded, but that was not the case. Because of the NCLB, along with State and Federal subsidies, the school had exorbitant amounts of resources; however, there was not much buy-in from the community and as a result, the resources were not always used in the best way. This is not to say that there was no element of white flight, as the school is located in Watts, which if my history serves me correctly was a predominately Anglo-American farming community prior to WWII; however, when the school was born in the late 1970’s it was considered to be an excellent school with a predominately African American base, but then the PCP and Crack epidemic confronted the community. I chose to work at the school because I wanted to help, but quickly learned that help was not easily accepted. In order to survive and gain respect from the students at the school, seeing as I was an outsider, I had to seek guidance from members of the community. Fortunately, a man who went to the school, before deciding to become a teacher there, took me under his wings to show me the ropes. The students saw this and became willing to work with me because they saw that I respected the people of their community. There were other teachers at the school, who were young and idealistic like me, but were working under the umbrella of educational organizations, such as TFA, who in my opinion, are a bit elitist. I noticed that my colleagues made little connections with the community that they served and worked under the guidance of their organization, seeking little guidance from the locals, so to speak. What I found from my experiences working there is that in order for a teacher to make an impact, they have to respect and be respected by the community. Otherwise, as I saw with some of my colleagues, you will get walk on by the students and they will not accept you. Interesting that although you may well live only ten miles from one community, it is literally a different world and you have to learn the language.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Voice
To tell you the truth, I chose the Royster article because the title was catchy. I think that we’ve discussed this issue time and time again in the Rhetoric/Comp classes. I know that those of you who have taken Sherman’s class have had the debate about ‘voice’ vs. form, audience, purpose, etc., and I know that we haven’t spoken about this in our class. I know through my own writing that audience often overpowers my writing, then comes form, content, and voice. I am not sure if the last three are in that order or if they are mashed into one process…who knows? I also know when the first voice I hear is not my own, but I know that if the paper is good and will get me an A…I know that is what I want and I don’t care about my voice.
Now onto the article…
Royster’s article reminds me of Pratt’s article, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” where Pratt discusses that the “safe houses” are the classrooms where our students become a community, discuss, and are free to discuss their own ideas. Pratt states:
The idea of the contact zone is intended in part to contrast with ideas of community that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture that gets done in the academy… The fact that no one was safe made all of us involved in the course appreciate the importance of what we came to call “safe houses.” We used the term to refer to social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogeneous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, temporary protection from legacies of oppression. This is why, as we realized, multicultural curricula should not seek to replace ethnic or women’s studies, for example. Where there are legacies of subordination, groups need places for healing and mutual recognition, safe houses in which to construct shared understandings, knowledges, claims on the world that they can then bring into the contact zone.
Royster reminds the teacher that the challenge is “to teach, to engage in research, to write, and to speak with Others with the determination to operate not only with professional and personal integrity, but also with the specific knowledge that communities and their ancestors are watching” (33). As a student and teacher, I love this concept—bringing together the ideas and voices of the community within my classroom, sharing our stories to demonstrate the transformation and growth we have as a society. But, as my students are testing in my room right at this moment; this noble and respectful idea seems to dissipate as I worry about what the administration will say about my test scores, maybe I focused too much on themes, culture, connections, and not enough on test taking skills, grammar, spelling…superlatives and appositives. Can I interpret this movement as one that “coopts, dissipates, and displaces voices” (35)? Has this movement forgotten the voice of the individual because of a dominant form, audience, and content which presides over the educational system? Are we criminals, guilty of “spirit murder”? Robbing our children of their voices to fulfill the requirements and standards dictated by some higher power that provides our paychecks?
What do I know? I know I can do better. I know that my room is a contact zone. I know that I need to shift and transform by crossing boundaries. This is my voice.
Now onto the article…
Royster’s article reminds me of Pratt’s article, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” where Pratt discusses that the “safe houses” are the classrooms where our students become a community, discuss, and are free to discuss their own ideas. Pratt states:
The idea of the contact zone is intended in part to contrast with ideas of community that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture that gets done in the academy… The fact that no one was safe made all of us involved in the course appreciate the importance of what we came to call “safe houses.” We used the term to refer to social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogeneous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, temporary protection from legacies of oppression. This is why, as we realized, multicultural curricula should not seek to replace ethnic or women’s studies, for example. Where there are legacies of subordination, groups need places for healing and mutual recognition, safe houses in which to construct shared understandings, knowledges, claims on the world that they can then bring into the contact zone.
Royster reminds the teacher that the challenge is “to teach, to engage in research, to write, and to speak with Others with the determination to operate not only with professional and personal integrity, but also with the specific knowledge that communities and their ancestors are watching” (33). As a student and teacher, I love this concept—bringing together the ideas and voices of the community within my classroom, sharing our stories to demonstrate the transformation and growth we have as a society. But, as my students are testing in my room right at this moment; this noble and respectful idea seems to dissipate as I worry about what the administration will say about my test scores, maybe I focused too much on themes, culture, connections, and not enough on test taking skills, grammar, spelling…superlatives and appositives. Can I interpret this movement as one that “coopts, dissipates, and displaces voices” (35)? Has this movement forgotten the voice of the individual because of a dominant form, audience, and content which presides over the educational system? Are we criminals, guilty of “spirit murder”? Robbing our children of their voices to fulfill the requirements and standards dictated by some higher power that provides our paychecks?
What do I know? I know I can do better. I know that my room is a contact zone. I know that I need to shift and transform by crossing boundaries. This is my voice.
How about writing instruction before the university?
Rose brings up some interesting points in his article, "The Language of Exclusion." What caught my attention wasn't some philosophical idea, it was a fact about education in America. Certain "skills should be mastered before one enters college and takes on higher-order endeavors. And the place for such instruction-before or after entering college-is the English class. Yes, the skill can be refined, but its fundamental development is over, completed via a series of elementary and secondary school courses and perhaps one or two college courses..." (347). I don't have any figures on student performance from in the public school systems, but I can't resist to place some of the blame on teachers. Now I don't mean to insult my classmates who teach. You guys are great students and I'm sure you take your jobs seriously. I'm talking about the teachers that pass students along without having instilled a greater awareness of literacy. What a "remedial class" is can be ambiguous, at Rose notes that different universities have their own criteria. But if students have to take a class at the university level on fundamental aspects of writing that just have to be learned, I think that's unfair to students who are ready to take classes for their major, and to the professors who spent the better part of their twenties in school working on a doctorate. I think teaching literacy to generations of students is a collective effort, not the sole responsibility of one particular segment of the educational system. For that matter, parents and need to take more responsibility over their child's/children's literacy. Not all parents are capable of assisting their kids in school subjects, but the least they can do is make sure they spend time doing homework.
Having said all this, I don't think all forms of literacy can be taught in middle school or high school, as a certain level of cognition has to be reached before students broach particular concepts imperative to intellectual growth. I do, to some degree, understand the need for "remedial classes" at universities, as writing is "central to the shaping and directing of certain modes of cognition, is integrally involved in learning, is a means of defining the self and defining reality, is a means of representing and contextualizing information" (348). I could only imagine how many people in America would be impeded from going to college because of a perceived lack of literacy.
Having said all this, I don't think all forms of literacy can be taught in middle school or high school, as a certain level of cognition has to be reached before students broach particular concepts imperative to intellectual growth. I do, to some degree, understand the need for "remedial classes" at universities, as writing is "central to the shaping and directing of certain modes of cognition, is integrally involved in learning, is a means of defining the self and defining reality, is a means of representing and contextualizing information" (348). I could only imagine how many people in America would be impeded from going to college because of a perceived lack of literacy.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
If we're in ideology, then I am biased and shaped by it
The Kirsch-Ritchie article, “Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research,” reminds me, like Ben, of female writers like Gloria Anzaldua and Sndra Cisneros. These two female writers give a voice to a specific location and provide a “ new emphasis on the personal [and] on validating experience as a source of knowledge ( 7). In Anzaldua’s work, Borderlands, we see that she is “examining [her] experiences as reflections of ideology and culture, by reinterpreting [her] own experiences through the eyes of others, and by recognizing [her] own split [self, her] multiple and often unknowable identities” (8). In her text, Anzaldua explores the problems of identity along with the problems of a rhetoric that has generated due to her location. Cisneros’ work, like that of Anzaldua, deals with what Kirsch and Ritchie call the “politics of location” in the title of the text, House on Mango Street. Like Anzaldua’s Borderlands, this text is establishing a location that is central to the contents of the inside pages, and it is dealing with feminine as well as race issues. And I find these “politics of location” to be a fascinating read, and quite difficult to overcome when it comes to research. I mean we lie in ideology and it is all around us, and having to take on the role of self-moderator when conducting research seems to be asking too much, especially when most researchers are too busy in trying to prove a point and willing to ignore anything that challenges that point. As for the “ethics of care” that the article is promoting, I think that this would be a great idea, but I do not see it being applied to research for the same purposes that I stated above. Researchers are focused on the main goal, and research is mainly a means to an end, where the point is to come to a conclusion that has already been established. As for those studies where one is looking for the outcome, ideology comes into play and gets in the way of an unbiased conclusion.
"Student" Writers
For today's blog, I read from the text of Min-Zhan Lu, Chapter "Professing Multicultaralism: The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone" verse 6: "Why is it that in spite of our developing ability to acknowledge the political need and right of 'real' writers to experiment with 'style,' we continue to cling to the belief that such a need and right does not belong to 'student writers'?" (491).
I've been guilty of doing this--valuing "real" writing over "student" writing. More often than not, I consider my own writing to be at the "student" level, and that "real" is ambiguous and essentially unattainable. I know Min-Zhan Lu addresses the issue as it pertains to multiculturalism in teaching writing, but I don't think this downplaying of student writing only pertains to those in various contact zones.
I think this calls for a reevaluation of what is meant by "real" writing. In the first place, I have come to realize that it is a large disservice to equate the term "professional" with "real." I have known much non-professional writing that I would consider real, and a great deal of professional writing I wouldn't. I'm not going to give a concrete definition here, as it is currently quite subjective. However, I will feel somewhat satisfied if people (i.e., you, my fellow teachers) consider a little more carefully about the terms they use.
I've been guilty of doing this--valuing "real" writing over "student" writing. More often than not, I consider my own writing to be at the "student" level, and that "real" is ambiguous and essentially unattainable. I know Min-Zhan Lu addresses the issue as it pertains to multiculturalism in teaching writing, but I don't think this downplaying of student writing only pertains to those in various contact zones.
I think this calls for a reevaluation of what is meant by "real" writing. In the first place, I have come to realize that it is a large disservice to equate the term "professional" with "real." I have known much non-professional writing that I would consider real, and a great deal of professional writing I wouldn't. I'm not going to give a concrete definition here, as it is currently quite subjective. However, I will feel somewhat satisfied if people (i.e., you, my fellow teachers) consider a little more carefully about the terms they use.
"Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam"
In Joy Ritchie's and Kathleen Boardman's "Feminism in Composition: Inclusion, Metonymy, and Disruption," the authors, "in writing this brief critical historical survey" (585), alliteratively consider how feminists have "begun rewriting the rhetorical tradition by reclaiming, refiguring, and regendering 'Rhetorica'" (586).
In doing so, they proclaim that, "the near-absence of feminism from our publications does not constitute absence from the field" (587), implying that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, thus recognizing the logical fallacy that exists when one posits something to be either necessarily true or necessarily false simply because it hasn't yet been proven either one or the other. Contextually speaking, the authors are simply saying that, despite the paucity of evidence in the rhetorical fossil record, woman have been and continue to be re-writing rhetorica.
The only reason why there aren't more women on record as rhetoricians is simply due to the fact that, until relatively recently, they have been effectively barred from doing so.
Let's remember to include everyone in this discourse community because if we don't, we're liable to miss out on the many knowledge opportunities that may be provided by those writers we may, for whatever reason whatsoever, consider unworthy of admission into "Academia."
In doing so, they proclaim that, "the near-absence of feminism from our publications does not constitute absence from the field" (587), implying that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, thus recognizing the logical fallacy that exists when one posits something to be either necessarily true or necessarily false simply because it hasn't yet been proven either one or the other. Contextually speaking, the authors are simply saying that, despite the paucity of evidence in the rhetorical fossil record, woman have been and continue to be re-writing rhetorica.
The only reason why there aren't more women on record as rhetoricians is simply due to the fact that, until relatively recently, they have been effectively barred from doing so.
Let's remember to include everyone in this discourse community because if we don't, we're liable to miss out on the many knowledge opportunities that may be provided by those writers we may, for whatever reason whatsoever, consider unworthy of admission into "Academia."
The Politics of Location
Okay, theoretically I found this piece to be interesting. Granted, because of inequalities people are overlooked and academic discourse can, at times, represent the white male and ignore “marginalized” people, places and cultures. This is an extremely complicated issue. One point I would like to highlight in Kirsch and Ritchies piece is the idea that: “In composition, a number of scholars have begun to invent writing that highlights multiple narratives and diverse perspectives… Such innovative writing challenges journal editors to develop a greater tolerance for ambiguity and unconventional forms of discourse, and challenges readers to learn new ways of reading and interpreting texts” (541). This is a good point and I would like to point out, that some of these practices are being used at the high school level. Granted, I do not have my students reading multiple narratives by the likes of bell hooks or Anzaldua, as those pieces might be a bit challenging for a ninth grade student; however, there are many other works to use that offer similar modes of discourse.
A great example of an entry-level book for multiple narratives is the House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. I use this book with my ninth grade students because it is an excellent portrait of a young person, who is coming of age, amidst difficult circumstances manifested by society and culture. The main character, Esperanza, is a Latino female marginalized by society. The book is broken down into vignettes, that at times are poems, and at other times short stories, but pits and pieces of Spanish are used to illustrate the author’s somewhat autobiographical position regarding her place in society. This is a good piece to read with my student’s because it highlights a different voice that is perhaps not always heard in our society.
In regards to how all of this applies to the “politics of location”, Kirsch and Ritchie appear to be suggesting that the higher education English departments need to approach their discipline acknowledging that “[o]ur research instead will need to extend to theory-generating in a self-reflexive and mutually dialogic context to help researchers and participants challenge and change the conditions that keep oppressive structures in place” (542). While I agree that other voices need to be heard, I find this statement to be a little bit over the top. Is it really composition research and academics that keep oppressive structures in place? Reading and writing is the gateway to knowledge. Although different people have their own political and social opinions about what is being delivered in the classroom or in compositional studies, I feel that many teachers do not attempt to ignore “marginalized” students. From my experience as a teacher, I see myself and my colleagues trying to provide students with a large variety of resources for students to look at so they can find their own “personal” truths. Furthermore, is this not what reading and writing about in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)