Due to the high level of prescribed narcotics running through my body right now, I can assure you that I will be using my real voice in this blog. I will not attempt to put a filter on my thoughts as I shape this blog from the "point of utterance."
After reading Elbow's article, I realize "voice" was the first element that actually drew me to writing. I have been journaling since I was eight-years-old and keep copies of filled journals chronologically organized on one of my bookcases. Perhaps it is an oddity to journal at such a young age, but this seemingly superfluous practice has helped me strengthen my unique voice.
I know that Elbow says that one can practice developing one's voice through journaling or free-writing without having an intended audience in mind. I find, however, that I always have a nebulous concept of an audience as I write. Even when I journal for myself, I have the feeling that someone with voyeuristic tendencies might one day pick up one of my journals and have access to my innermost thoughts. Because of this, I was always conscious of making my journal entries clear enough so that other people than myself could understand my entries.
Whether or not this voice has enhanced my academic voice is hard to say. I believe that some people's real voices might be to irreverent for the academy. A person could also be born with a voice that is not intrinsically suited for academia. Although, I find that one's unique voice tends to fit into the academic field he or she chooses. For example, there are many varying voices in the medical field, but they all retain a similar thread of vocabulary and organization. The same goes for the fields of literature, engineering, art, psychology, etc. Each discipline has an over-arching voice in which an individual must place his- or herself. I have done no research on this topic, but I would assume that the majority of scholars can situate their own voices within the range of voices in their discipline.
Your authentic, unique voice helps you stand out (hopefully not negatively) amidst a field of scholars who seem to constantly rehash the same information. A new voice added into the mixture might be refreshing. And isn't this how new movements begin anyways? A person's voice is sometimes the best way of persuading others to accept new ideas.
Elbow's article fits in perfectly with Britton's "Shaping at the Point of Utterance" article. I was also able to personalize that article quickly. Again, this probably comes from journaling so often. There is no erasing in journals (perhaps an occasional retrospective marking out of sentences). But journals require you to move forward with your first thought and develop it into something worth writing. I find that my writing suffers when I stray to far away from my journaling.
In this way, I don't think that I am necessarily "confident" with my voice. In fact, I would probably blush if I actually witnessed anyone reading my blog which does, in essence, expose my "authentic" prose sans corrections. Instead of confidence, I would attribute the prominence of real voice in my writing to practice. It is the style in which I am most comfortable writing--the style in which I learned to write to begin with.
I consider oration and prose in the same genre. I prefer writing styles that emulate the speaking voice. The only difference between written English and spoken English should be the "clarity" of speech because one has more time to correct glaring grammatical errors. The ideas should be at the same level, as should the rhythm. The worst articles are the ones that make me have cause to pause and reread the sentence because the rhythm seems awkward. An occasional adjustment in rhythm, correction of grammar, and reorganization ought to occur in most writing--but I argue this should only be done after the first draft is written.
Disguising my voice helps no one. I am not a spy. I do not need disguises.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Take 10 divided by 5, plus 8, times 2
My impression of the Take 20 video may not be fully accurate. I watched it on my computer at 1.4x frames/sec. So, to me, it seemed really upbeat and full of enthusiasm.
I enjoyed the playful reminiscing of the interviewees at the beginning of the video. The fact that even experts in the pedagogical field were neophytes at some point in their teaching career was comforting. Also, it was helpful to learn that there are so many different theories about pedagogy. I sometimes feel like my teaching style somehow doesn't fit the mold. However, this video made me feel like my style was valid. I think I'll take a note out of the Take 20 video and describe my first moments as a teacher.
I remember my first teaching experience. I was 20 years old in my sophomore year of college. The principal of my old high school asked me if I would like to start substitute teaching (probably at the behest of my mother who is a math teacher there). My experience in that first class can only be called "unique." Because I was an alumna, I knew most of the students there. The weirdness was compounded by the fact that my three younger siblings had not yet graduated from this institution. I had zero credibility as a teacher.
The process of learning how to be comfortable in the classroom was almost a harder lesson than how and what to teach. I felt like any minute I was going to be fired for doing something wrong or stupid. Finally, I learned how to exert my authority, what clothes to wear to emphasize power, what things to say to get kids under control, and what material to focus on to engage kids in the learning process. I taught at this particular school for five years. Because I could adapted to that institution's teaching style, I was able to substitute for longer periods of time. My typical job usually lasted anywhere from two weeks to an entire semester. During that time, I also learned how to specifically adapt to each individual teacher's pedagogy without fully compromising my own views about teaching.
Of course, the process seems to start over again at every new institution. Even after 4 years of experience, my first semester teaching at the TTU French department was terrifying. Perhaps it was because I was instructing my students in a mix of English and French, and perhaps it was because I had moved out of high school into the university sphere, but I again felt as if I were going to be fired at any moment for screwing everything up.
I can only hope that I will continue to be confident in my personal teaching methods while at the same time learning to adapt to the pedagogy preferred by my employers. The Take 20 video reminded me that teaching theories are varied and that everyone gets scared and feels inadequate at some point.
I enjoyed the playful reminiscing of the interviewees at the beginning of the video. The fact that even experts in the pedagogical field were neophytes at some point in their teaching career was comforting. Also, it was helpful to learn that there are so many different theories about pedagogy. I sometimes feel like my teaching style somehow doesn't fit the mold. However, this video made me feel like my style was valid. I think I'll take a note out of the Take 20 video and describe my first moments as a teacher.
(dissolve for dramatic effect)
I remember my first teaching experience. I was 20 years old in my sophomore year of college. The principal of my old high school asked me if I would like to start substitute teaching (probably at the behest of my mother who is a math teacher there). My experience in that first class can only be called "unique." Because I was an alumna, I knew most of the students there. The weirdness was compounded by the fact that my three younger siblings had not yet graduated from this institution. I had zero credibility as a teacher.
The process of learning how to be comfortable in the classroom was almost a harder lesson than how and what to teach. I felt like any minute I was going to be fired for doing something wrong or stupid. Finally, I learned how to exert my authority, what clothes to wear to emphasize power, what things to say to get kids under control, and what material to focus on to engage kids in the learning process. I taught at this particular school for five years. Because I could adapted to that institution's teaching style, I was able to substitute for longer periods of time. My typical job usually lasted anywhere from two weeks to an entire semester. During that time, I also learned how to specifically adapt to each individual teacher's pedagogy without fully compromising my own views about teaching.
Of course, the process seems to start over again at every new institution. Even after 4 years of experience, my first semester teaching at the TTU French department was terrifying. Perhaps it was because I was instructing my students in a mix of English and French, and perhaps it was because I had moved out of high school into the university sphere, but I again felt as if I were going to be fired at any moment for screwing everything up.
I can only hope that I will continue to be confident in my personal teaching methods while at the same time learning to adapt to the pedagogy preferred by my employers. The Take 20 video reminded me that teaching theories are varied and that everyone gets scared and feels inadequate at some point.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
"No man is an island."
If you think you're going to get away with never having to write in your whole life, then you are sorely mistaken. My main job is as a technical editor for a doctor who has to write clinical research articles. He never thought he would ever have to give presentations or write articles about his clinical practice. He may have thought his clinic was an entity unto itself. But because his research can be so beneficial to similar specialists, he had to leave his local bubble and begin to communicate with other experts in his field.
This is a man who only pulls out a pen to scribble barely legible prescriptions on pad. All of his articles are dictated. So, in a way, yes, this man can get away with never reading MLA, APA, or Chicago. He doesn't have to worry about comma splices or capitalization. He has a secretary transcribe all his dictations for him, and he pays me to check his grammar, punctuation, and style.
But....he still needs to have certain fundamental skills. You can pay people to edit, but you can't pay people to think for you.
Sure, my client can get away with not knowing anything about grammar/punctuation because this will be corrected for him before his peers see his mistakes. (Side note: This doesn't keep me from thinking he sounds really stupid sometimes. He's a relative, so I can say he's dumb, right?) The man is actually brilliant, but he has trouble communicating his thoughts.
We teach first-year composition because ideas have to be communicated in some way, shape, or form in every discipline. (If you can think of a discipline that doesn't require the free and open exchange of ideas, let me know).
Even if most of us can get away with poor grammar and imperfect punctuation the rest of our lives, the quality of our ideas and how we present those ideas will be a constant, outward signifier of our own intellect.
We have to teach students to practice analyzing, interpreting, and conveying their ideas in words. Resumes, office memos, professional emails--so much communicating is done in writing, and people can easily judge you (or misjudge you) by your written communication. If we can get students to improve the quality and cogency of their ideas and messages, we can make them better communicators in any field in which they choose to specialize.
This is a man who only pulls out a pen to scribble barely legible prescriptions on pad. All of his articles are dictated. So, in a way, yes, this man can get away with never reading MLA, APA, or Chicago. He doesn't have to worry about comma splices or capitalization. He has a secretary transcribe all his dictations for him, and he pays me to check his grammar, punctuation, and style.
But....he still needs to have certain fundamental skills. You can pay people to edit, but you can't pay people to think for you.
Sure, my client can get away with not knowing anything about grammar/punctuation because this will be corrected for him before his peers see his mistakes. (Side note: This doesn't keep me from thinking he sounds really stupid sometimes. He's a relative, so I can say he's dumb, right?) The man is actually brilliant, but he has trouble communicating his thoughts.
We teach first-year composition because ideas have to be communicated in some way, shape, or form in every discipline. (If you can think of a discipline that doesn't require the free and open exchange of ideas, let me know).
Even if most of us can get away with poor grammar and imperfect punctuation the rest of our lives, the quality of our ideas and how we present those ideas will be a constant, outward signifier of our own intellect.
We have to teach students to practice analyzing, interpreting, and conveying their ideas in words. Resumes, office memos, professional emails--so much communicating is done in writing, and people can easily judge you (or misjudge you) by your written communication. If we can get students to improve the quality and cogency of their ideas and messages, we can make them better communicators in any field in which they choose to specialize.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Three Most Important Concepts in Composition
For my own personal trinity of composition concepts, I need look no further than the Medieval and Renaissance scholars. I have long been a fan of the trivium and have considered tutoring my own children because I feel like too much of the knowledge today is dumbed down because institutions underestimate what young minds are capable of. Grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic have always been components of composition.
Certainly stodgy old concepts by long-dead philosophers need a certain amount of finagling to appeal to the 21st century crop of young writers. Even today, most new strategies use the trivium as their base but incorporate a more personalized learning style (i.e. expressivism). Actually, because the trivium was often studied under private tutelage or independently, the trivium was, in its original essence, an extremely personalized endeavor. The Socratic method, which involved the tutor-driven questioning of students (allowing the student to reach "true" conclusions through his own trial and error) grew out of Classical philosophy and remained during the trivium. I remember several years ago that the Socratic method was slowly becoming en vogue because of the book Socrates Cafe (Christopher Phillips 2001). I think that it was the institutionalization of the learning process in the 20th century that has paradoxically overcomplicated and oversimplified the learning process. Let's face it--not every teacher is a genius. With so many teaching philosophies floating around, an inexperienced teacher can get lost in pedagogy and end up dumbing down information.
Students need to learn grammar. Too many students make it to university with almost incomprehensibly low grammar skills. Poor grammar is the quickest way to misjudge someone's intelligence. Most of the time, people will be too distracted by horrible grammar and style to recognize even the most cogent of arguments.
Students need to learn rhetoric. If a student cannot organize his or her ideas with compelling language, even the best grammatical essay will resemble the work of a neophyte.
Students need to learn dialectic. Analyzing, interpreting, and presenting one's own insight about a given subject happens in any academic and non-academic field. In school, at work, in casual conversations with friends, dialectic is how we communicate our ideas to one another. Dialectic is, in a way, the verbal representation of one's self.
The direction of much of the educational field, unfortunately, has gone solely in the way of dialectic. Students adept at analyzing and interpreting literature can CLEP out of 12 hours of English but still have no clue how to write their own observations and/or arguments in a grammatically and rhetorically sound manner.
So these are my top three components for teaching composition, but they only work if one last concept is kept in mind: teachers need to quit underestimating students. Many times this happens (I speak from personal experience) because a teacher is too tired or "un-enthused" about their own subject that he or she does not take the time to figure out where students are struggling and try to help them understand potentially more difficult concepts.
My English teachers in high school emphasized these concepts. They graded harshly, but they also took the time to correct all of our mistakes. They taught us hard concepts and held us to high standards, and even though it was hard work, the rewards at the end were well worth the struggle. I never encountered anything near the level of scholarship I performed in high school English until graduate school (except Dr. Grass's and Dr. Couch's 4000 level courses).
A good teacher sets high standards (i.e. via the trivium), can relate to students by personalize lectures and grading with in depth commentary, and thus produce successful writers and scholars. .
Certainly stodgy old concepts by long-dead philosophers need a certain amount of finagling to appeal to the 21st century crop of young writers. Even today, most new strategies use the trivium as their base but incorporate a more personalized learning style (i.e. expressivism). Actually, because the trivium was often studied under private tutelage or independently, the trivium was, in its original essence, an extremely personalized endeavor. The Socratic method, which involved the tutor-driven questioning of students (allowing the student to reach "true" conclusions through his own trial and error) grew out of Classical philosophy and remained during the trivium. I remember several years ago that the Socratic method was slowly becoming en vogue because of the book Socrates Cafe (Christopher Phillips 2001). I think that it was the institutionalization of the learning process in the 20th century that has paradoxically overcomplicated and oversimplified the learning process. Let's face it--not every teacher is a genius. With so many teaching philosophies floating around, an inexperienced teacher can get lost in pedagogy and end up dumbing down information.
Students need to learn grammar. Too many students make it to university with almost incomprehensibly low grammar skills. Poor grammar is the quickest way to misjudge someone's intelligence. Most of the time, people will be too distracted by horrible grammar and style to recognize even the most cogent of arguments.
Students need to learn rhetoric. If a student cannot organize his or her ideas with compelling language, even the best grammatical essay will resemble the work of a neophyte.
Students need to learn dialectic. Analyzing, interpreting, and presenting one's own insight about a given subject happens in any academic and non-academic field. In school, at work, in casual conversations with friends, dialectic is how we communicate our ideas to one another. Dialectic is, in a way, the verbal representation of one's self.
The direction of much of the educational field, unfortunately, has gone solely in the way of dialectic. Students adept at analyzing and interpreting literature can CLEP out of 12 hours of English but still have no clue how to write their own observations and/or arguments in a grammatically and rhetorically sound manner.
So these are my top three components for teaching composition, but they only work if one last concept is kept in mind: teachers need to quit underestimating students. Many times this happens (I speak from personal experience) because a teacher is too tired or "un-enthused" about their own subject that he or she does not take the time to figure out where students are struggling and try to help them understand potentially more difficult concepts.
My English teachers in high school emphasized these concepts. They graded harshly, but they also took the time to correct all of our mistakes. They taught us hard concepts and held us to high standards, and even though it was hard work, the rewards at the end were well worth the struggle. I never encountered anything near the level of scholarship I performed in high school English until graduate school (except Dr. Grass's and Dr. Couch's 4000 level courses).
A good teacher sets high standards (i.e. via the trivium), can relate to students by personalize lectures and grading with in depth commentary, and thus produce successful writers and scholars. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
