In my brother's 9th grade year, his new English teacher was currently getting her PhD in English while teaching his class. She was so engrossed in her own education, that she forgot how difficult her assignments were for her students. Although many of the students were able to rise to the occasion, they did so at the point of nervous breakdowns (private school kids can't accept failure). She forgot to put herself in her students shoes and reflect on how the assignments were effecting them. This is not to say that I think this teacher had already learned everythign there was to learn and couldn't possibly remember what it was like to be a struggling 15 year old English student. However, I felt that she relied to much on the level she had attained and lacked the ability to look at the basic skills that got her to that point.
Quite possibly, this teacher skirted over the basics when she was younger, understanding them for the most part but perhaps never fully grasping them. It never hurts to go back to the basics and see how you make connections in your mind and try to relay them to students.
Teachers constantly need to go through self-reflexive re-evaluation processes of their teaching methods. It can't hurt to actually poll your students to find out what is effective and what isn't.
I think a good attitude also goes a long way. I find that negativity and undue criticism wear away at the teacher more than the student. Constantly focusing on a students lack of moral rectitude will probably eat away at the teacher with the soul rather than the student who doesn't have one.
So, to better yourself as a teacher requires a bit of humility and an attitude that's able to just let things go every once and a while. For those who are thrust into teaching for the purpose of achieving funding, this next part might not be so applicable. But I think that if teaching is your calling, you become a better teacher by reflecting on what you can positively contribute to the overall system of knowledge and to students' personal academic growth.
Monday, December 1, 2008
End of Composition
Unless you're born perfect, there will probably never be an end to composition. All writing can always be improved (if not, then editors would not exist).
I think when we talk about the "end of composition" we are thinking that at some point, students should just "get it" and be able to function in the adult...what..intellectual community, business word, political society? Honestly, definitions are as varied as the numerous students who take composition. How can there be an end to composition if we can't even agree on a definition.
Some people will always suck at writing...but their ideas and ability to critically think might improve. As unbelievable as this might seem to philologists, some people's brains just don't understand how to coherently put words down on paper. Of course, I could understand words in lengthy essays about microbiology without being able to put the concepts together and understand the actual material. So linguistic ability in terms of righting skill is not always directly proportionate to intellectual ability.
We demand, in a massive university effort to all incoming freshmen, a thorough indoctrination of the skills of composition that will, in some mysterious mystical ritual, ensure them a rite of passage into higher education.
So, we can stamp a passing grade on FYC students' papers or demand better curriculum in high school so that FYC becomes unecessary in college, but the likelihood of this happening is about the same as Heidi and Spencer becoming decent people who can positively contribute to society.
I think when we talk about the "end of composition" we are thinking that at some point, students should just "get it" and be able to function in the adult...what..intellectual community, business word, political society? Honestly, definitions are as varied as the numerous students who take composition. How can there be an end to composition if we can't even agree on a definition.
Some people will always suck at writing...but their ideas and ability to critically think might improve. As unbelievable as this might seem to philologists, some people's brains just don't understand how to coherently put words down on paper. Of course, I could understand words in lengthy essays about microbiology without being able to put the concepts together and understand the actual material. So linguistic ability in terms of righting skill is not always directly proportionate to intellectual ability.
We demand, in a massive university effort to all incoming freshmen, a thorough indoctrination of the skills of composition that will, in some mysterious mystical ritual, ensure them a rite of passage into higher education.
So, we can stamp a passing grade on FYC students' papers or demand better curriculum in high school so that FYC becomes unecessary in college, but the likelihood of this happening is about the same as Heidi and Spencer becoming decent people who can positively contribute to society.
Perfect Teacher
Surprisingly, this one is pretty easy to answer. Obviously there is no "perfect" teacher, but there are always "extraordinary" teachers.
The best teachers, first off, actually want to be teachers. Needless to say, people who fell into the profession because they wanted to coach, or needed a job, or wanted *cough* graduate student funding *cough* might not be the most invested purveyors of knowledge.
I think that as long as a teacher is genuinely interested in the subject AND interested in helping the student reach his or her potential (rather than using the classroom as their own personal "look how smart I am" fest), then that teacher is awesome.
Respect for students, interest in the text, and effective skill in communicating knowledge are all absolutely required. Nun-chuch skills, computer hacking skills and bow hunting skills are just an added bonus.
The best teachers, first off, actually want to be teachers. Needless to say, people who fell into the profession because they wanted to coach, or needed a job, or wanted *cough* graduate student funding *cough* might not be the most invested purveyors of knowledge.
I think that as long as a teacher is genuinely interested in the subject AND interested in helping the student reach his or her potential (rather than using the classroom as their own personal "look how smart I am" fest), then that teacher is awesome.
Respect for students, interest in the text, and effective skill in communicating knowledge are all absolutely required. Nun-chuch skills, computer hacking skills and bow hunting skills are just an added bonus.
Philosophy of Teaching
Obviously there are different philosophies of teaching. Even if teachers haven't actually ever sat down and read through composition or teaching theory, everyone approaches education in a different way.
If I think back through the teachers I've had from kindergarten until now, I find that some of my graduate professors share similar qualities with my grade school teachers. The worst teachers all seemed to be the worst for the same reasons, and the best for the best reasons. Part of teaching is an inherent gift to relate to students while still maintaining authority and accomplishing objectives. This can be accomplished in any number of ways be they formalistic, expressive, or any combination of teaching strategies. An effective teacher usually has an "effective" personality to go along with their philosophy. Now, if a teacher is focused on quality of the student's experience or the quality of the student's actual education can sometimes be mutually exclusive but not always.
I approach the classroom expecting to be frustrated with students but also with the mindset that everyone deserves a fair chance before I begin to make assumptions. I actually tend to have the softest spot in my heart for students who struggle (regardless of whether it's due to learning differences, personal problems, or just a general bad attitude). Call it the Dead Poets Society syndrome, but I wouldn't mind if a bunch of kids stood up on their desks proclaiming "O Captain! My Captain!"
My philosophy of teaching first of all includes the quality of the material that will be used in class. I like to combine formal with modern (wanting of course to do a course on Medieval literature and its contemporary themes in Anime and MMORPGs). The student's engagement in the text is then my next requirement. Finally, a standard of strict grading and rigidly adhered to assignments complete the rest of my philosophy. I've always found a structured learning environment to be comforting and motivating since I tend to lack the oh-so-important skill of self-motivation.
Never know how to conclude these things....
Um...
Yeah.
If I think back through the teachers I've had from kindergarten until now, I find that some of my graduate professors share similar qualities with my grade school teachers. The worst teachers all seemed to be the worst for the same reasons, and the best for the best reasons. Part of teaching is an inherent gift to relate to students while still maintaining authority and accomplishing objectives. This can be accomplished in any number of ways be they formalistic, expressive, or any combination of teaching strategies. An effective teacher usually has an "effective" personality to go along with their philosophy. Now, if a teacher is focused on quality of the student's experience or the quality of the student's actual education can sometimes be mutually exclusive but not always.
I approach the classroom expecting to be frustrated with students but also with the mindset that everyone deserves a fair chance before I begin to make assumptions. I actually tend to have the softest spot in my heart for students who struggle (regardless of whether it's due to learning differences, personal problems, or just a general bad attitude). Call it the Dead Poets Society syndrome, but I wouldn't mind if a bunch of kids stood up on their desks proclaiming "O Captain! My Captain!"
My philosophy of teaching first of all includes the quality of the material that will be used in class. I like to combine formal with modern (wanting of course to do a course on Medieval literature and its contemporary themes in Anime and MMORPGs). The student's engagement in the text is then my next requirement. Finally, a standard of strict grading and rigidly adhered to assignments complete the rest of my philosophy. I've always found a structured learning environment to be comforting and motivating since I tend to lack the oh-so-important skill of self-motivation.
Never know how to conclude these things....
Um...
Yeah.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
I like jigsaw puzzles. I admit I've watched pro wrestling before.
I just imagined the whole class having a wrestling match. We could throw chairs and ladders and everything.
Maybe a tamer idea would be to just build a bunch of jigsaw puzzles together.
That being said, I'm not sure what puzzles me or what I'm wrestling with in regards to the articles.
I know what bugs me though.
I have a problem with studies that have such small sample sizes. Moreover, none of these social experiments seem to have control groups or repeatable elements.
I think the reason why we argue so much in class over the discrepancies in the "study" articles we've looked at is because these articles can't really come anywhere near giving proper findings. I appreciated it when Dr. Rickly said that many of these articles are just meant to be testimonials--Hey, this is what I did and it worked. Try it out.--But I wish that there were more feasible studies that really could help give solutions to some of the questions about writing process, group work, etc. Are there no studies out there with large sample sizes that have been conducted over several years?
Maybe I'm just tainted by my job where I look at IMRAD methods all day long and critique my authors' scientific method. But couldn't pedagogical theory be just as practical if we spent time on more extensive studies? Surely this is worth a dissertation topic or two. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
Okay...so I'm wrestling with this. And I guess I'd really like to punch these shallow studies in the face. Bam!
Maybe a tamer idea would be to just build a bunch of jigsaw puzzles together.
That being said, I'm not sure what puzzles me or what I'm wrestling with in regards to the articles.
I know what bugs me though.
I have a problem with studies that have such small sample sizes. Moreover, none of these social experiments seem to have control groups or repeatable elements.
I think the reason why we argue so much in class over the discrepancies in the "study" articles we've looked at is because these articles can't really come anywhere near giving proper findings. I appreciated it when Dr. Rickly said that many of these articles are just meant to be testimonials--Hey, this is what I did and it worked. Try it out.--But I wish that there were more feasible studies that really could help give solutions to some of the questions about writing process, group work, etc. Are there no studies out there with large sample sizes that have been conducted over several years?
Maybe I'm just tainted by my job where I look at IMRAD methods all day long and critique my authors' scientific method. But couldn't pedagogical theory be just as practical if we spent time on more extensive studies? Surely this is worth a dissertation topic or two. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
Okay...so I'm wrestling with this. And I guess I'd really like to punch these shallow studies in the face. Bam!
How important is theory/are theories in our academic work? Why are they/aren't they important? Is it important for us to be familiar with theories t
Theory is obviously important in academic work. Or at least...the concepts behind the theories are important. I feel though, that people tend to naturally drift into theories. For the sake of articles and job interviews for academia, it helps to be able to define one's own theoretical slant. I am not sure if missing a theory course, however, would seriously deter anyone from exploring a certain topic. I was speaking to a professor the other day, who will remain nameless, and he/she does not think theory courses were that applicable to his/her work.
Theory almost seems to be an outdated practice. Most current scholarship tends to focus on a survey of scholarly literature on their topic rather than focus on differing theoretical practices. Certainly, there is a place in some arguments for theoretical debate, but today it seems like much of the criticism of articles focuses on the validity of the argument based on evidence, not on the theoretical framework.
For pedagogy, it might be more helpful to understand theory. Many of us are thrown into the teaching profession with little to no knowledge of pedagogical theory. I anticipate that I will probably glance back at some of these articles from class in the future and try to define my teaching style or try to find different ideas for teaching effectively.
All this being said, I don't think theory should be as canonical as it is. Leave it for the Philosophy or Psychology department.
Theory almost seems to be an outdated practice. Most current scholarship tends to focus on a survey of scholarly literature on their topic rather than focus on differing theoretical practices. Certainly, there is a place in some arguments for theoretical debate, but today it seems like much of the criticism of articles focuses on the validity of the argument based on evidence, not on the theoretical framework.
For pedagogy, it might be more helpful to understand theory. Many of us are thrown into the teaching profession with little to no knowledge of pedagogical theory. I anticipate that I will probably glance back at some of these articles from class in the future and try to define my teaching style or try to find different ideas for teaching effectively.
All this being said, I don't think theory should be as canonical as it is. Leave it for the Philosophy or Psychology department.
. . .
It's interesting that I've just spent the past 5 minutes trying to think of a title for this blog and couldn't think of anything. What was my process? I sat at the screen and stared. Chatted on Facebook on one internet screen while I kept the blog up on the other.
I am sitting in a dark office with one tiny lamp lit, casting vertical light beams in the corner of the room. It's dark outside too. I can see a few raindrop remnants in the bottom left corner of the window because of the lights from the courtyard.
I feel like writing for fun in this setting. Instead, I'm writing to finish assignments. I have to get blogs done, write bibliographies, and writing for publication assignments.
Multiple deadlines definitely do not help my writing process.
This weekend I have a conference paper coming up. I am excited about it, and I think that the process of writing this particular paper is similar to most of the work I do in which I am actually interested. My other writing (dictated by academic or other necessity) has no real process. I usually procrastinate until I run out of time and am forced to do things. This semester is particularly bad because I am taking 12 hours. Back to the point--I am going to have fun writing this conference paper, and I am actually aware of my writing process for this type of work. So here it is.
I come up with an idea. These ideas really do happen to be determined by the whims of the muses. Once I have my idea, I research the topic as much as possible. (Even if it is fiction, I research anything that could be related to the idea). Then I spend countless hours writing outlines. I jot them down everywhere. I write them in class while I am supposed to be taking notes. I write them in church during sermons. I also write down any minor ideas I might have about the topic. They find their way into my day planner, on sticky notes, written on my refrigerator or pinned to my bulletin board. I have to talk to people to get my ideas to really start to solidify, so sometimes I don't even have notes. But conversations help.
My organizational system is non-existent at this point. I am trying really hard to start organizing ideas on Google Docs so that I can always find my brainstorms. Unfortunately, I don't always have time to transcribe my written notes.
Once the outline is written and nailed down, my stress is totally gone. I then start to write the paper out in my head. This is completely unintentional, but while I'm at the gym, or riding my bike, or driving my car, or taking a shower, if the paper drifts into my thoughts, it stays there until I have worked out problems.
When I write, I definitely have to be in the right mood. My office at home is really warm and inviting. My bookshelves surround me like guardians of my thoughts. And it's comforting to see all my books around me. I think...other people have written far more words than me...this shouldn't be that hard.
I pop in a CD (usually Mozart's Requiem, some Cistercian monk chants, boys' choirs, or something celtic), pull out some notebook paper, gather any and all outlines that I have written. Then I finalize the outline (again). Then I start writing.
It usually takes about 5-8 hours to get 20 pages done. I do it all in one sitting. I may take 5 minute breaks in between. I feel totally anxious and nervous the whole time I write. Then, when it's done. I don't look at it for a couple hours.
I'll revise it the next morning maybe. That usually just consists of copyediting. I tend to trust my first instincts on drafts.
This is how I write any paper or conference paper.
But conference papers have additional steps. When I'm done with my 10 pages or so, I don't look at them for a while. I keep talking about the paper to people. I brainstorm ideas some more. I think about my audience--would they prefer a more conversational style or a formal, read paper?
I make corrections the night before. I read my paper for time. I usually read it aloud 3 times because I am making corrections the whole time I am reading. The accurate time estimate comes from the 3rd or 4th read.
That's my process. After that it's just turn the paper in or deliver it.
I am sitting in a dark office with one tiny lamp lit, casting vertical light beams in the corner of the room. It's dark outside too. I can see a few raindrop remnants in the bottom left corner of the window because of the lights from the courtyard.
I feel like writing for fun in this setting. Instead, I'm writing to finish assignments. I have to get blogs done, write bibliographies, and writing for publication assignments.
Multiple deadlines definitely do not help my writing process.
This weekend I have a conference paper coming up. I am excited about it, and I think that the process of writing this particular paper is similar to most of the work I do in which I am actually interested. My other writing (dictated by academic or other necessity) has no real process. I usually procrastinate until I run out of time and am forced to do things. This semester is particularly bad because I am taking 12 hours. Back to the point--I am going to have fun writing this conference paper, and I am actually aware of my writing process for this type of work. So here it is.
I come up with an idea. These ideas really do happen to be determined by the whims of the muses. Once I have my idea, I research the topic as much as possible. (Even if it is fiction, I research anything that could be related to the idea). Then I spend countless hours writing outlines. I jot them down everywhere. I write them in class while I am supposed to be taking notes. I write them in church during sermons. I also write down any minor ideas I might have about the topic. They find their way into my day planner, on sticky notes, written on my refrigerator or pinned to my bulletin board. I have to talk to people to get my ideas to really start to solidify, so sometimes I don't even have notes. But conversations help.
My organizational system is non-existent at this point. I am trying really hard to start organizing ideas on Google Docs so that I can always find my brainstorms. Unfortunately, I don't always have time to transcribe my written notes.
Once the outline is written and nailed down, my stress is totally gone. I then start to write the paper out in my head. This is completely unintentional, but while I'm at the gym, or riding my bike, or driving my car, or taking a shower, if the paper drifts into my thoughts, it stays there until I have worked out problems.
When I write, I definitely have to be in the right mood. My office at home is really warm and inviting. My bookshelves surround me like guardians of my thoughts. And it's comforting to see all my books around me. I think...other people have written far more words than me...this shouldn't be that hard.
I pop in a CD (usually Mozart's Requiem, some Cistercian monk chants, boys' choirs, or something celtic), pull out some notebook paper, gather any and all outlines that I have written. Then I finalize the outline (again). Then I start writing.
It usually takes about 5-8 hours to get 20 pages done. I do it all in one sitting. I may take 5 minute breaks in between. I feel totally anxious and nervous the whole time I write. Then, when it's done. I don't look at it for a couple hours.
I'll revise it the next morning maybe. That usually just consists of copyediting. I tend to trust my first instincts on drafts.
This is how I write any paper or conference paper.
But conference papers have additional steps. When I'm done with my 10 pages or so, I don't look at them for a while. I keep talking about the paper to people. I brainstorm ideas some more. I think about my audience--would they prefer a more conversational style or a formal, read paper?
I make corrections the night before. I read my paper for time. I usually read it aloud 3 times because I am making corrections the whole time I am reading. The accurate time estimate comes from the 3rd or 4th read.
That's my process. After that it's just turn the paper in or deliver it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
