Teaching Freshman Comp - Week 4
I'm fucking tired and overwhelmed and I have barely begun.
I am supposed to be writing everyday, working on my thesis. I have written twice and have two pages. . . Sigh. I'm not worried. I can do it. I can do it. I can do it. It is just that I need to get over my bullshit habit of working better with time dwindling before a hard deadline. I need to finish plowing through A Walker in the City again, and taking notes, as I have not spent as much time with that text as I have with The Fortress of Solitude, despite the fact that it is so good. The problem is that despite being a memoir, it kind of reads a long prose poem, and untangling the meanings and connections to be made from that text is more difficult than the relatively straight telling of a narrative found in the latter. In other words, it is harder work. It is less focused in a way - more focused in another.
This weekend my plan is two write at least 10 pages of thesis and a draft of my "statement of purpose" for my applications. The challenge for writing the latter will be to somehow transform my cynicism regarding the value of literary scholarship into something that will make admissions boards want to not only accept me in their program, but give me money to do it. I can't help but think that the variation of the quote from the Linda Kaufmann essay that I use as the subtitle of this blog perfectly captures my thoughts on the matter perfectly: Continually casting doubt on the status of knowledge even as I construct it.
So, Tuesday: I handed back the marked up first drafts of the students' "Language" essay. There was a LOT of red on those papers. I warned them before I handed them back that that would be the case. All comments, whether encouraging or critiquing were in red ink. I tend to write a lot of (hopefully) facilitative comments, asking for clarification, or suggesting another way to look at things or potential counter-arguments. Mostly I ask them over and over to be specific and to elaborate on their examples. Undergrads can be so frustratingly general and vague in their writing.
I went over some of the more common mistakes, like keeping tense consistent - I have never seen so many run-on sentences that start in the present tense, jump to the past and then back again - I also had to remind them of things like, not adding extra breaks between paragraphs, and to indent and to keep their paragraphs focused on one point, rather than kind of haphazardly jamming everything all together in one. And then we went over writing a conclusion again, and how when writing one it is best to avoid bringing up new points or arguments that you did not tackle or explain in the body of your essay. (Of course, I know that sometimes in a conclusion you can bring up questions that are a logical extension of your argument as way of giving the reader food for thought, but I am trying to not confuse them with exceptions).
We went on to discuss the two essays I had them read over the weekend, and we made a list on the board of the evidence and reasoning the authors used to make their points, without discussing whether we agree or disagree. I then had them take 25 minutes to write about one of point from each essay, explaining the argument and then responding with whether they found it valid one. I asked them to avoid personal or emotional reactions, but rather to tackle the author's reasoning. After that, we discussed them in more detail. Most of the students found the essay by Rick Santorum "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good" to be laughable and unrealistic, and while not every student spoke up, of those that did, every one of them were down with allowing same-sex marriage (when we discussed the Wolfson essay) and found restrictions on them to be fundamentally unjust. It gave me hope for the future - that is, all we need is a generation to grow up used to the idea for it to happen, even though that will still be too long a time for my tastes.
Thursday: More than half the class was late - which was to be expected as the final draft of their "Language" essay was due. I had them sit for 5 to 10 minutes at the beginning of class and check over their paper and make any last minute corrections - of course, those who were late did not have as much time to do this.
I handed back the in-class writing, and then after once again going over the common grammar and format stuff I noticed (for example, I told them not to refer to an author by their first name along unless they happen to chill with them on the weekends). We then went over two points I noticed in the writing. First of all, many of the students wrote about the example in the Wolfson article regarding prisoners getting the right to marry from the supreme court - and most of them wrote that this showed that even citizens who are criminals and have fewer rights have a right ostensibly law-abiding citizens who happen to be gay are deprived of(no, none of them used the word "ostensibly"). However, while the author makes that implication - more specifically, he uses the example because the justices came up with four criteria for determining marriage rights, and since gay folk pass that litmus test - the point is that legally they should already have the right. Secondly, I asked if any of them knew what was meant by the phrase "correlation does not equal causality". Santorum used a lot of statistics in his essay, and a lot of the papers seemed to take them at face value. I want the students to be more critical about how statistics are used, and to be especially suspicious when the studies mentioned are not given proper citation - We don't know who did the studies for whom. . . I wanted them to think about other factors in common that might contribute to the sad state statistical state of children from single-parent homes.
After this we took time analyzing a print of the Norman Rockwell painting "Freedom from Fear" and discussing it. I had them bring up various details they noticed in the painting and use these to construct ideas about the family and situation in it. I did this as an exercise in critical thinking, breaking part the whole to examine and reconstruct to evaluate and judge it. I then had then do more in-class writing, this time comparing another Rockwell painting to more contemporary images of family from a group of photos in their textbook. They could either compare "Family Tree" to a photograph of Thomas Jefferson's descendants at Montecello or "Freedom from Want" to an ad for a Samsung wide screen HDTV that features it crammed into a baby carriage with the copy "It's a Joy!" (I could not find a copy of the ad online to link to).
Finally, I briefed them on Horatio Alger and the idea of Horatio Alger stories, as they are reading an excerpt from one ("Ragged Dick" - this got a laugh out of the class) over the weekend, along with a essay that critiques the myth of American meritocracy and social mobility that is entitled "Horatio Alger."
Over the weekend, I have to read those in-class writing assignments as we are to discuss the responses in class next Tuesday, and I hope to grade the papers as well, as they have another first draft due of a paper on Thursday, and think they should have a grade to go by.
I am supposed to be writing everyday, working on my thesis. I have written twice and have two pages. . . Sigh. I'm not worried. I can do it. I can do it. I can do it. It is just that I need to get over my bullshit habit of working better with time dwindling before a hard deadline. I need to finish plowing through A Walker in the City again, and taking notes, as I have not spent as much time with that text as I have with The Fortress of Solitude, despite the fact that it is so good. The problem is that despite being a memoir, it kind of reads a long prose poem, and untangling the meanings and connections to be made from that text is more difficult than the relatively straight telling of a narrative found in the latter. In other words, it is harder work. It is less focused in a way - more focused in another.
This weekend my plan is two write at least 10 pages of thesis and a draft of my "statement of purpose" for my applications. The challenge for writing the latter will be to somehow transform my cynicism regarding the value of literary scholarship into something that will make admissions boards want to not only accept me in their program, but give me money to do it. I can't help but think that the variation of the quote from the Linda Kaufmann essay that I use as the subtitle of this blog perfectly captures my thoughts on the matter perfectly: Continually casting doubt on the status of knowledge even as I construct it.
So, Tuesday: I handed back the marked up first drafts of the students' "Language" essay. There was a LOT of red on those papers. I warned them before I handed them back that that would be the case. All comments, whether encouraging or critiquing were in red ink. I tend to write a lot of (hopefully) facilitative comments, asking for clarification, or suggesting another way to look at things or potential counter-arguments. Mostly I ask them over and over to be specific and to elaborate on their examples. Undergrads can be so frustratingly general and vague in their writing.
I went over some of the more common mistakes, like keeping tense consistent - I have never seen so many run-on sentences that start in the present tense, jump to the past and then back again - I also had to remind them of things like, not adding extra breaks between paragraphs, and to indent and to keep their paragraphs focused on one point, rather than kind of haphazardly jamming everything all together in one. And then we went over writing a conclusion again, and how when writing one it is best to avoid bringing up new points or arguments that you did not tackle or explain in the body of your essay. (Of course, I know that sometimes in a conclusion you can bring up questions that are a logical extension of your argument as way of giving the reader food for thought, but I am trying to not confuse them with exceptions).
We went on to discuss the two essays I had them read over the weekend, and we made a list on the board of the evidence and reasoning the authors used to make their points, without discussing whether we agree or disagree. I then had them take 25 minutes to write about one of point from each essay, explaining the argument and then responding with whether they found it valid one. I asked them to avoid personal or emotional reactions, but rather to tackle the author's reasoning. After that, we discussed them in more detail. Most of the students found the essay by Rick Santorum "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good" to be laughable and unrealistic, and while not every student spoke up, of those that did, every one of them were down with allowing same-sex marriage (when we discussed the Wolfson essay) and found restrictions on them to be fundamentally unjust. It gave me hope for the future - that is, all we need is a generation to grow up used to the idea for it to happen, even though that will still be too long a time for my tastes.
Thursday: More than half the class was late - which was to be expected as the final draft of their "Language" essay was due. I had them sit for 5 to 10 minutes at the beginning of class and check over their paper and make any last minute corrections - of course, those who were late did not have as much time to do this.
I handed back the in-class writing, and then after once again going over the common grammar and format stuff I noticed (for example, I told them not to refer to an author by their first name along unless they happen to chill with them on the weekends). We then went over two points I noticed in the writing. First of all, many of the students wrote about the example in the Wolfson article regarding prisoners getting the right to marry from the supreme court - and most of them wrote that this showed that even citizens who are criminals and have fewer rights have a right ostensibly law-abiding citizens who happen to be gay are deprived of(no, none of them used the word "ostensibly"). However, while the author makes that implication - more specifically, he uses the example because the justices came up with four criteria for determining marriage rights, and since gay folk pass that litmus test - the point is that legally they should already have the right. Secondly, I asked if any of them knew what was meant by the phrase "correlation does not equal causality". Santorum used a lot of statistics in his essay, and a lot of the papers seemed to take them at face value. I want the students to be more critical about how statistics are used, and to be especially suspicious when the studies mentioned are not given proper citation - We don't know who did the studies for whom. . . I wanted them to think about other factors in common that might contribute to the sad state statistical state of children from single-parent homes.
After this we took time analyzing a print of the Norman Rockwell painting "Freedom from Fear" and discussing it. I had them bring up various details they noticed in the painting and use these to construct ideas about the family and situation in it. I did this as an exercise in critical thinking, breaking part the whole to examine and reconstruct to evaluate and judge it. I then had then do more in-class writing, this time comparing another Rockwell painting to more contemporary images of family from a group of photos in their textbook. They could either compare "Family Tree" to a photograph of Thomas Jefferson's descendants at Montecello or "Freedom from Want" to an ad for a Samsung wide screen HDTV that features it crammed into a baby carriage with the copy "It's a Joy!" (I could not find a copy of the ad online to link to).
Finally, I briefed them on Horatio Alger and the idea of Horatio Alger stories, as they are reading an excerpt from one ("Ragged Dick" - this got a laugh out of the class) over the weekend, along with a essay that critiques the myth of American meritocracy and social mobility that is entitled "Horatio Alger."
Over the weekend, I have to read those in-class writing assignments as we are to discuss the responses in class next Tuesday, and I hope to grade the papers as well, as they have another first draft due of a paper on Thursday, and think they should have a grade to go by.