Exciting! Secret! Thoughts!

I, who find the most difficult part of class to be speaking up before a group of (in my imagination) mocking and insolent combatants, expected to find myself rather refreshed and empowered by the non-confrontational system of internet communication.  Free from staring eyes and embarrassing blushes that left me filled with self-loathing, I should be free to triumphantly declare all I think and feel with the knowledge that here, at my disposal, is the forgiving backspace key…ready to exonerate even my most horrendous gaffs. 

Yet, I am oddly stymied by this requirement.  What is the appropriate tone?  For whom am I writing and to what end?  Should it be a place for me to air larger concerns about the politics of universities and the trials of teaching (both of which I know little about)?  Or should it be some combination of forces resulting in a panorama of ponderings and witticisms that creates an entertaining and enlightening window into my brain?

 At hour 3 of indecision, I find that the assignment has thoroughly served its purpose in reminding me of the confusion of being required to write in an unfamiliar way. Though I am not quite reliving the humiliation of a freshman in her first writing class, it gives me renewed sympathy for those whom I shall have to teach.

It (along with some of the reading) has also made me reconsider my own gendered reaction to classroom participation and whether it is best to be accommodating to those who feel uncomfortable (as I have often wished my teachers would have done) or to recognize the necessity of such participation since good communication skills and eloquence-on-the-spot are required in most classes. Is it not to encourage an unfortunate tendency to allow such an escape from the realities of a college classroom?

Requiring in-class student participation, though, can easily go too far. One of my many professors who set up entire classes as discussions would contribute very little herself, mock student answers and declare that if we didn’t speak up we should forfeit points (implication: flunk, drop out of college and have a meaningless life).  I found it completely ridiculous to threaten students into participating when her brief and perfunctory attempts failed to elicit any conversation…and I probably glowered at her from the back row all semester. 

Perhaps blogging, as a supplement to class discussion, is a middle ground, not threatening but not encouraging reclusiveness either. Offering, instead, another mode of communication (and working from it) for students who have difficulty vocalizing in class.

However, to return to my original thought:  if the blog is meant to be a non-confrontational ‘safe’ place to develop ideas, how formal should it be, especially if it shall be considered as a component of graded participation?  What is the proper tone?

Was this?

I find I was reminded of some instances in the writing center that I found puzzling while reading the section on rhetoric…I have been struck by the unfortunate fact (if I may grossly generalize) that the logical progression of subject and a rational presentation of facts is often sadly absent in many composition papers.  Not so, however, for the typical introductory philosophy paper.  In fact, I have been rather surprised by their organization and support. Though the groups of freshman are similar to those in comp classes and have had similar amounts of time to learn, these seem to have progressed more rapidly, or ‘gotten it’ as it were.Meaning no disrespect to my chosen (and beloved) field of literature, I begin to wonder if placing the responsibility of freshman composition solely on the English Department is to deny the value of such skills that would be more self-consciously in the realm of philosophy or logic. For, surely, it is not our intention that the 3-5 page papers should be Moby Dick or Paradise Lost. So, why should the persons specializing in the analysis of such texts be held responsible for the creation of arguably non-creative, argument driven papers? (Oh, but wait, maybe such goals are exactly the purpose for those in rhet/comp…must not forget that there are other aspects to the English dept. than my own…)From my limited knowledge of the study of rhetoric, it seems it would offer students a foundation in logic which, I believe, would have been immensely helpful in improving the papers I have read.  I am highly interested to see what sorts of assignments and readings the book Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students has to offer and I shall continue to kick myself that I wasn’t more prompt in my textbook selection.

In the internet-less void of my home, I composed the following thoughts about the first section of the reading for tues. and planned to release it as my first blog.  Upon inspection of some other posts, I find that I was, perhaps, in error about what they are supposed to be.  Yet, finding that I have nothing else to say and am only tentatively convinced that this is working, I tally forth with what I had. Please accept my deepest apologies if the following is either boring or irrelevant and my solemn promise to be more amusing in the future. Thoughts on Section 1: Process PedagogyIn resisting my almost overpowering urge to criticize, I must say Tobin makes a fine case in describing the outdated methods that necessitated Process Pedagogy.  The assignments that he recalls make one shudder and, if I found myself in such a classroom, I would, undoubtedly, have thrown myself from a window far before the end of the semester.

Similarly Tobin does not hesitate to acknowledge the limitations of the pedagogy that he so valiantly endorses.  And, in his discussion of its faults, I found myself somewhat reassured.

Among these  instances is the italicized musing on pg. 11:  “process pedagogies are irresponsible because they fail to teach basic and necessary skills and conventions”.  I found myself perpetually tormented by a similar notion while reading…though it is nice to encourage creativity of expression for students, the lack of structure that this pedagogy implies seems more adept as a creative writing class than one designed to teach freshman about the tribulations of academic writing (which, no matter how creatively taught, may still seem regimented and boring). To make a wholesale dismissal of the more formal approaches to writing seems a mistake.  One is always able to write about what one has experienced—and most likely such writing will be more fluid and entertaining  BUT it is imperative to have the skills necessary to be able to talk about more abstract or complicated matters in an organized and persuasive way, not just describe personal experiences.Towards the end of the essay Tobin hits at the crucial point:  No single pedagogy is going to fulfill all of the instructors’ objectives, nor all of the students’ needs, and though it may seem highly oppositional in the mini-battle fields of articles and conferences, one is free to move between the conflicting forms and take the best from each.As such, I found the example about a teacher utilizing a process approach while still maintaining boundaries on assignments and inserting necessary fundamentals into the more democratic classroom a good, practical example of how process methods can be used. As a component of a more complicated pedagogy, I recognize that this would undoubtedly have a useful and relatable end: that of engaging the students more actively in the assignments and facilitating a desire to write that may have been squelched by more strict impositions about correctness.Post-process, though Tobin finds it so distasteful, seems a promising bridge over the rift between the old and the new that process pedagogy created.  Since process pedagogy was reacting against such an overly structured methodology, it is easy to see why it needed to be so oppositional. But, now that one is free (presumably) from the ABAB impositions of writing, it seems a good idea to lead the writing process somewhat and fortify it with some necessary knowledge.

Welcome to Comp.missouri.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!