CUNY Practicum: English

A new wrinkle

Since I last posted about my constructivist discussion (where students took on most of the authority), I have yet to return to that model.  Old habits die hard.  But this past Monday I decided I wanted to give it a whirl--particularly because the classroom dynamic has gotten more conversational in the past couple of weeks.

However, rather than a lack of discussion, we had an overabundance of it.  Much of this had to do with the fact that the conversation moved away from the essays for the day and towards a more general conversation.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since I consider discussion on the composition level to be about the practice of articulating ideas, rather than understanding specific elements from each text.

The problem that arose this time is that rather than turn to me as the authority in the classroom, two students emerged as the discussion leaders.  As the two most vocal in the class, students naturally turned to them and those students in turn took on the authority of discussion leadership.  I eventually had to step in and bring some other students into the discussion.  I'm currently thinking of ways to prevent this from happening again, though it's a vast improvement over silence.

Speaking of Pedagogy

I would like to point out another reason I find the rhetorical model of the Twin Peaks article useful. As we all adapt our classroom work and teaching style in light of constructivism, some of us might come out of this experience with different responses.  They might not all be positive, or might be positive in different, meaningful ways.  This is particularly true given our interdisciplinarity.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea of 7 people putting together a unified front and a concrete, unambiguous conclusion.  The polyvocality of this strucutre would not bring conclusions to the fore, but rather the kind of conversation professors and instructors need to be having about their classroom practice.   The most significant part of what we do is that ability to share ideas together productively, and that's something I would like our article to pass on.

More details

After discussing two readings on Wednesday, I explained to students that they all used the phrase "nice details" in their workshops, and that I wanted them to define the term for me.  As expected, the responses were both varied and innacurate; at best, vague.   So I took the opening paragraphs from Toni Morrison's "Strangers" and had students list all of the most important "details" that Morrison gives about the woman she meets. I asked them to give me conclusions about this woman that we might take away from these details.   Together we came to an understanding that details essentially paint a picture for a reader that is more satisfying that just explaination.  Although I hate the phrase, details are used to "show, not tell" to the reader.   

Following this I had students choose one of the photos given in the essay and describe the person in the photo based on what they saw.  After doing this, I had them describe the person beyond the photo--personality, job, where they might live, etc.  We will go over these in class on Monday.

The emptiness of "Nice Details"

On Wednesday (and again Thursday due to weather) my class took part in a workshop of their literacy narratives.   With each semester I see the workshop as more and more important, particularly now in the light of our constructivist focus.  Students can productively learn to see their own writing and the writing of others in a more critical and independent light, rather than leaving that job to me.

I try to practice giving feedback--we watched a video example of group work and then practiced with a student essay (supplied by Peter).  However, when I moved among the groups, listening in on comments (and occasionally giving feedback) I heard the same tired, meaningless comments.    One in particular was "you use really nice details."  Often, this would be in reference to an essay with absolutely no good details and when I would press that student to explain more fully, would be met with blank stares.

Rather than let this pass, I am getting proactive.  I have readjusted our next class meeting to have a discussion and writing session where we will clarify what "details" are, how we might understand when they are "effective" (rather than "good") and then spend some time incorporating such details into their revisions.  Hopefully at our next workshop, this will facilitate students giving more critical feedback to one another, rather than mouthing words they don't understand.

Process vs. Content, Part Deux

I have to retract some of my statements from my last post.  Last week's discussion on literacy narrative went really well.  Students had some interesting things to say, and a couple of students made comments that obviously illuminated the readings for others (I think I've spotted a couple of favorites, and they're not even that attractive).  My one concern is that we went back to the more traditional discussion model.   Old habits are hard to break.   

But the proof will be in the papers.  I get the first draft in on Wednesday for our workshop.  We'll see if process, content, or anything translated into their own writing.  I'm hoping at the very least they will apply those critical reading skills to one another. 

Process vs. Content

  In our meeting last night, and our continuing discussion about discussion, the distinction between "content" and "process" came up.  For me, content means discussing the intellectual material of a given text--understanding the argument(s) within a text, contradictions, "meaning", if you will.  Process means focusing more on mechanics.  I'm aware that such a binary is false to a point.  But even in 101, I'm used to spending more time discussing content.  I would rather talk about the implications of Marx on our contemporary experience than discuss the mechanics and style that make up a "manifesto."  However, I'm also aware that students don't always understand those mechanics, which inform the content and more importantly, cannot transfer those techniques of writing to their own work. 

But I went to school in the liberal arts tradition and I'm now a grad student.  I LOVE the roundtable exchange of ideas. I'm finding my early discussions with my current students to be much more thin and ultimately, less interesting to me.  I'm working to create a balance where students will learn to be writers from the readings, but will also be able to engage with meangingful intellectual material.  However, these two goals seem to be at odds with one another right now. 

What We Talk About When We Talk About "Discussion"

This is a response to Peter's post from 2-1 about the concept of "discussion."  Let me give a rundown of what this used to mean to me (I'm changing everyday).  I usually would start with some in-class writing, giving students a question that would relate to the larger conversation I hoped to have happen.  This would take about 15 minutes.  I would then bring everyone together.  But here, I fell into the traditional model.  I would stand at the front of the class, collecting ideas from students and writing a lot on the board.  I know a lot of people like to have discussions with students in a circle (hierarchies and all that), but I consider note taking to be a really important part of the discussion and students learn to take notes by modeling what I choose to write. 

I always had a series of questions as well as bullet points that I wanted the discussion to cover before we were done.  Points could be met in any order, based on where the conversation went, particularly if students latched onto certain ideas more enthusiastically than others.   

So I'm intrigued by the alternatives Peter proposes--let students decide who speaks next?  I like the idea, but of course, also find it terrifying.  I haven't nailed down Monday's lesson plan yet--maybe there's no time like the present. 

Meeting with Head of Comp

This Monday morning I met with Professor Linda Stanley to review my syllabus and talk about the overall goals of En 101 at QCC.  Happily, it looks like my overall plan for the semester aligns with the major expectations of the department.  The comp handbook states "writing assignments are typically constructed to move from the personally expressive to the more objectively academic."  As someone who loves the "objectively academic" and generally dislikes the "personally expressive,"I usually like to jump into the latter without using the former to help lay a meaningful foundation of skills.  However, my current syllabus follows this exact model.

So now I am in the position to find a constructivist set of activities to help move students along with this first paper.  But the question i ask is--isn't this assignment fundamentally constructivist?  By asking students to think critically about past experiences and shape them into their own narrative, have I not set the wheels in motion for how students "construct his/her own meaning"?  My hope is that in asking them to think critically about experiences that are close to home, but perhaps not fully analyzed, I'm keeping our constructivist goals in focus. 

Constructivism and Me

So I'm back from my holiday travels, sober, and ready to get down to work on my syllabus in light of our constructivist aim.  Honestly, I'm finding this to be a harder task them I imagined it would be.  I have assignments and dates planned out for drafts, workshops, etc.  But imagining the day-to-day is proving to be very difficult, leaving large gaps in my syllabus.  I'm used to discussions on readings taking up most of the time.  Although useful, it's not totally "constructivist."

My solution is to create more small group work--where students will be able to share their ideas in a more intimate group, thereby facilitating activity from students who don't share in larger groups.  I also find that when I do small group work, students take more initiative rather than relying on me to give them the "answers."  My concern is that when students have too much time to construct their own meaning, then class time devolves pretty rapidly.  Any advice?

Research Topic--some ideas

As I mentioned in last week's discussion, I'm interested in an uncommon rhetorical structure for the research we will be working on together. I was imspired by the essay  "Postmodernism and Television: Speaking of Twin Peaks."  It can be found in the essay collection Full of Secrets: Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks, edited by David Lavery.

Although we're still early in the project, let me lay out a couple reasons I think this model could be well suited for us.  First of all, as an interdisciplinary work, such a model would allow us to share our distinct disciplinary perspectives without falling into generalizations that migth not be suited to all of our fields and/or experiences.

Secondly, as we're interested in constructivist pedagogy, which makes use of student's personal experiences as self-reflective writing and thinking, our scholarship would reflect a pedagogical model we consider effective for students.  If we're committed to a particular pedagogy, perhaps its usefulness should be modeled in our own learning and writing process.

Just some food for thought.  Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.