For the writing what we teach assignment, I chose to analyze MLK Jr's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" because I knew that my students would be reading it when we worked on the position paper and would therefore be familiar with the text when we came to the textual analysis unit.
I focused on King's appeal to audience in my textual analysis, so during the position paper unit, after I had taught the concepts of pathos, ethos, and logos, I broke the class into three groups and asked each group to look for their assigned classical appeals in King's essay. The next class period we analyzed the text, each group listing textual examples and explaining how King made use of appeals. I felt that having the unknowingly do a textual analysis as a class before we began the textual analysis unit would help them understand the process later.
On the second day of the textual analysis unit, after I had gone through the "basics" of textual analysis the class period before, I explained that what we had done with "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was an example of textual analysis. I then showed them the portion of my drafting process in which I had made bulleted lists of textual support for pathos, ethos, and logos in King's essay, explaining that they had done the same thing a few weeks ago. I then passed out a copy of my final draft as a sample paper for them and gave them a peer review type sheet and had them analyze the essay. When they were done, we discussed as a class the judgment, criteria, textual support, and analysis in my sample.
I'm not sure how incredibly well the assignment went over. While I think the activity I did in the position paper unit was really good, I feel that they were bored with the worksheet. I think that a student sample would have been better because my analysis was a bit more complex than perhaps they are ready to do.
In the future, I would consider trying this assignment again, but I may try to make my textual analysis a little more "basic." Or perhaps I would just use an overhead transparency to explain my process and then point out the judgment, criteria, etc. Also, I would probably do a "writing what we teach" type of activity earlier in the term (as most did with their textual analysis) when I was still focusing on revision. At this point in the semester, I feel as though I've already covered revision pretty heavily.
All in all, I think the Writing What We Teach Assignment was beneficial because it enabled my to empathize with my students and to clarify a workable process to suggest to them in doing their own textual analysis.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Blog Prompted for 4-21-08.
The way I responded to this situation would depend on how clear I thought I'd been in stipulating what needed to be included in the assignment, whether the weather had been bad prompting low attendance, and whether over the course of the term my students had shown that if they understood the assignments, they would fulfill the requirements.
In most any case I would probably tell the students that their assignments would be considered late until they provided me with the missing components. And I would go ahead and deduct the 10 pts per late day until their packet was complete (and let them know I would do this). To not do this would be to allow them to miss out on the learning involved in completing all parts of the assignment and to encourage them to think following directions unimportant and to take advantage of me in future assignments.
However, if a lot of people had missed because of weather or if I felt the assignment were unclear or had only included the instructions in the syllabus and had not reminded the class of the stipulations before the essays were due, I would probably tell them they needed to have their packets completed by the next class period or I would start deducting late points until it was.
In the end, my decision would probably depend on the "character" of the given class and the attitudes of the people in it.
In most any case I would probably tell the students that their assignments would be considered late until they provided me with the missing components. And I would go ahead and deduct the 10 pts per late day until their packet was complete (and let them know I would do this). To not do this would be to allow them to miss out on the learning involved in completing all parts of the assignment and to encourage them to think following directions unimportant and to take advantage of me in future assignments.
However, if a lot of people had missed because of weather or if I felt the assignment were unclear or had only included the instructions in the syllabus and had not reminded the class of the stipulations before the essays were due, I would probably tell them they needed to have their packets completed by the next class period or I would start deducting late points until it was.
In the end, my decision would probably depend on the "character" of the given class and the attitudes of the people in it.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
My Baby Isn't Ugly. You Are.
On Friday when I went into the English office at 7:30am to print copies of the handouts and reading activity I had prepared on logical fallacies, the good ol' printer wouldn't work. Again. The screen told me to reboot, but the sign under the power switch said, "Do Not Turn Off Printer Here!" And seeing as how the sign was hand-written, likely by a secretary, and employed the use of an exclamation point (one of only a few that secretary is allotted for her lifetime), I left the office without my activity. Needless to say, I had to come up with another lesson plan on the spot. Rather panicked, and a lot annoyed, I decided to do an impromptu debate.
To be honest, I've heard several GA's talk about having classroom debate-like discussions about various topics (including the similarities between turkey farming and baseball, was it?), but I've always been a bit hesitant to try to plan a whole class period around debate or discussion of just one issue. I think this is because I don't trust my students to hold up their end of the bargain. Nor do I trust myself to be able to pull something out of nowhere to keep the class going if the students don't participate. As it turns out, though, both of the classes went extremely well, and the students were quite willing to enthusiastically hold up their end of the bargain.
In each class I suggested a few debate topics and let them choose; gave them a few minutes to brainstorm their opinions individually; split them up into groups, in which they discussed their arguments and anticipated counter arguments; then let the teams debate back and forth. Once I prompted the first team to provide an argument, I did nothing. It was really quite nice.
The first class debated whether everyone 14 and older convicted of crimes should be tried as adults. The debate started out as a polarized issue, but by the time it was over, the two sides were suggesting middle-ground arguments, stipulating conditions, and suggesting reform. Amazingly, the debate lent itself to a "teaching moment" when I was able to point out to the students that just as they had created non-polar positions in the debate, when they write their position papers, they need to consider that not all issues consist only of polarized positions. They seemed to understand better through the debate what I meant when I had earlier talked about taking positions that involved stipulations, conditions, or solutions rather than just "pro" or "con."
My second class was interesting for different reasons. This class would not choose a debate topic, so I quite naively suggested the topic "English 110 should/should not be required of all MSU students." The class was pretty evenly divided on the issue, and each side made excellent points. Unfortunately, though, the "against" side had more outspoken personalities and better debaters.
They said things like, "If the university really valued this class and saw a need for it, they would have 'real' teachers teaching it, not GAs (no offense to you Miss Beary)." and "Yeah, they're banking on ENG 110: pay the GAs next to nothing, and make all the students take the class. Money in their pockets." And "We already learned MLA and how to write in high school. This class just tests our ability to write too many papers in too little time."
While the "pro ENG 110" side had some good responses, it took everything inside of me to keep my mouth shut. I sat there on the desk feeling rather insulted and rather attacked. Before they started the debate I knew they would say all of those things, but I guess I didn't realize how difficult a time I would have not responding. When one of my students said, "Every single one of us on 'this side' already knows how to write papers without the teachers help," I wanted so badly to say, "And is that why most of you would have issues with comma splices, fragments, organization, audience awareness, and critical reasoning, eh?" But I didn't because, well, that just wouldn't be nice (or teacherly).
Later that night when I talked to a friend who has been teaching for several years and told her about assigning the debate prompt in my second class, she laughed and said, "And I'll bet the slaughtered you, huh? My classes slaughtered me too when I assigned that as a writing prompt. What's always surprising is the way we react internally. Isn't having your discipline, especially your class, criticized a little like somebody telling you your baby's ugly?" She's right. It is. She also pointed out that I had made a head nod to Marxism with that debate. And I guess I had.
All in all, I think Friday's classes rank among the best two or three class periods of the semester. Interesting how sometimes things we haven't planned go better than lessons we spend hours on. Perhaps in this case it is because I had to rely on the students and couldn't underestimate them.
To be honest, I've heard several GA's talk about having classroom debate-like discussions about various topics (including the similarities between turkey farming and baseball, was it?), but I've always been a bit hesitant to try to plan a whole class period around debate or discussion of just one issue. I think this is because I don't trust my students to hold up their end of the bargain. Nor do I trust myself to be able to pull something out of nowhere to keep the class going if the students don't participate. As it turns out, though, both of the classes went extremely well, and the students were quite willing to enthusiastically hold up their end of the bargain.
In each class I suggested a few debate topics and let them choose; gave them a few minutes to brainstorm their opinions individually; split them up into groups, in which they discussed their arguments and anticipated counter arguments; then let the teams debate back and forth. Once I prompted the first team to provide an argument, I did nothing. It was really quite nice.
The first class debated whether everyone 14 and older convicted of crimes should be tried as adults. The debate started out as a polarized issue, but by the time it was over, the two sides were suggesting middle-ground arguments, stipulating conditions, and suggesting reform. Amazingly, the debate lent itself to a "teaching moment" when I was able to point out to the students that just as they had created non-polar positions in the debate, when they write their position papers, they need to consider that not all issues consist only of polarized positions. They seemed to understand better through the debate what I meant when I had earlier talked about taking positions that involved stipulations, conditions, or solutions rather than just "pro" or "con."
My second class was interesting for different reasons. This class would not choose a debate topic, so I quite naively suggested the topic "English 110 should/should not be required of all MSU students." The class was pretty evenly divided on the issue, and each side made excellent points. Unfortunately, though, the "against" side had more outspoken personalities and better debaters.
They said things like, "If the university really valued this class and saw a need for it, they would have 'real' teachers teaching it, not GAs (no offense to you Miss Beary)." and "Yeah, they're banking on ENG 110: pay the GAs next to nothing, and make all the students take the class. Money in their pockets." And "We already learned MLA and how to write in high school. This class just tests our ability to write too many papers in too little time."
While the "pro ENG 110" side had some good responses, it took everything inside of me to keep my mouth shut. I sat there on the desk feeling rather insulted and rather attacked. Before they started the debate I knew they would say all of those things, but I guess I didn't realize how difficult a time I would have not responding. When one of my students said, "Every single one of us on 'this side' already knows how to write papers without the teachers help," I wanted so badly to say, "And is that why most of you would have issues with comma splices, fragments, organization, audience awareness, and critical reasoning, eh?" But I didn't because, well, that just wouldn't be nice (or teacherly).
Later that night when I talked to a friend who has been teaching for several years and told her about assigning the debate prompt in my second class, she laughed and said, "And I'll bet the slaughtered you, huh? My classes slaughtered me too when I assigned that as a writing prompt. What's always surprising is the way we react internally. Isn't having your discipline, especially your class, criticized a little like somebody telling you your baby's ugly?" She's right. It is. She also pointed out that I had made a head nod to Marxism with that debate. And I guess I had.
All in all, I think Friday's classes rank among the best two or three class periods of the semester. Interesting how sometimes things we haven't planned go better than lessons we spend hours on. Perhaps in this case it is because I had to rely on the students and couldn't underestimate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
