Reading about the 'rounded education' was very familiar to me - grammar, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy, logic, and rhetoric. I never, however, connected any of this with the study of style. I've always known style to be present in writing, but I really have never put two and two together - so to say -until after reading the chapters assigned for this week. Composition, for me, has never really been an art form, but looking at the five component parts of rhetoric centered on an analysis of this art gave me a little bit of an 'ah-ha' moment. "Invention, the modes of discovering arguments; arrangement; expression, which included the study of style in argumentation; memory; and delivery, including both pronunciation and gesture" (30) are the five components Conley describes. I suppose this explanation lends itself to style and an art form. As a teacher, I have been going through the motions of teaching these five components not really thinking about how powerful they can be.
What I got from the readings is that rhetoric is an art form that can allow individuals to draw conclusions of their own based on the delivery of the message given. The means of delivery portray how righteous and true the speaker is. We were introduced to Cicero and the ideal orator. I see a lot of the Ciceronian theory alive today. The better the speaker, the better the person. After I read all of the readings this week, I immediately thought of George W. Bush and President Obama. Eloquence is essential to delivery and style. I think back to the addresses of the former president and how ignorant he sometimes sounded. His message was lost because he was not an elegant speaker, even though he had sometimes very good and sometimes very questionable messages, as do all politicians. Then I compared him to our current president, who is a phenomenal speaker. He is very poised and sounds very educated. His style creates that impression for many Americans. So how does this relate to the reading? Well, looking at what Pliny said about Trajan and how it was said, it is apparent that style matters. Pliny was able to mix the facts with ideals and create expectations that are acceptable for everyone.
Elegance is impressive. Dancers, women, clothing, jewelery, etc. that is considered elegant is often admired. When something is admired it is sometimes coveted. And when something is coveted, it can often be stolen or imitated. People say imitation is the greatest compliment; so it seems to me that when Cicero, Quintilian, Pliny, Philodemus, and Dionysius took from their predecessors and teachers, they were admiring, coveting, and imitating ideals and theories to create elegance in their rhetoric. This relates to my favorite quote on pg 43 of Conley: "Rhetoric did not wither under the emperors, it just changed tactics." This statement is true throughout history and that is how style creates the message and the response, the elegance.
The argument that rhetoric is an art form remains to be seen; however, the ability to speak to many and change the impression of thought is definitely a talent. I don't know if talent and art are interchangeable. Speaking publicly takes practice, writing well takes practice, communicating thoughts clearly takes practice, so if this is to be considered art, then art is in the eye of the beholder.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Classical Greek Rhetorics
The first chapter of Conley's book offers a really brief explanation of rhetoric. I think my favorite line from the chapter is on pg. 2 toward the bottom: "...having might is equated with being right." This statement offers us an insight to how the ancients viewed rhetoric and its purpose. The words art and manipulation appeared and were implied throughout the chapter making me wonder how much of rhetoric is based on these two words. Therefore, this led me to believe that rhetoric of this time was not about finding the truth, but entertaining an audience with opinion causing the audience to believe that the opinion was truth. What a mouthful of manipulation ("the art of persuasion").
I feel this chapter really allowed me to better understand the chapters about the ancients in Matsen's book. The different approaches to rhetoric by the ancients in this book gave me a visual of each situation. To actually see the rhetoric, the speech, and the audience portrayed side by side as they were was insightful. I was able to determine who I thought was 'good' and who I thought was 'bad' for lack of better terms. As I read, I found myself relating these gentlemen to my students and what I tell them about "the art of persuasion". We focus on the appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) in all of our writing not necessarily looking for the right answer or the true answer, but how to persuade, argue, and communicate with one another. I believe Aristotle had the right theory. Plato is a bit strong for an average classroom; but really, how many times in reality does embarrassing or degrading someone cause that person to want to change? It may not be the most effective way of persuasion, but it does sometimes work.
As I read the two books, I kept thinking about Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar. Two totally different speeches about the same event, but which one was more effective and why? Words can give us power; and what we decide to do with that power is up to us. If we can reach the masses, then we have the control; if we have control, then we have power.
I feel this chapter really allowed me to better understand the chapters about the ancients in Matsen's book. The different approaches to rhetoric by the ancients in this book gave me a visual of each situation. To actually see the rhetoric, the speech, and the audience portrayed side by side as they were was insightful. I was able to determine who I thought was 'good' and who I thought was 'bad' for lack of better terms. As I read, I found myself relating these gentlemen to my students and what I tell them about "the art of persuasion". We focus on the appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) in all of our writing not necessarily looking for the right answer or the true answer, but how to persuade, argue, and communicate with one another. I believe Aristotle had the right theory. Plato is a bit strong for an average classroom; but really, how many times in reality does embarrassing or degrading someone cause that person to want to change? It may not be the most effective way of persuasion, but it does sometimes work.
As I read the two books, I kept thinking about Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar. Two totally different speeches about the same event, but which one was more effective and why? Words can give us power; and what we decide to do with that power is up to us. If we can reach the masses, then we have the control; if we have control, then we have power.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
As I See It...
I must say, I have definitely changed my outlook on teaching composition in the high school language arts classroom. I have kept what I believe works well for me in the composition classroom (the old school methods), but have also embraced the other philosophies about writing in the classroom. This has been quite a journey for me, but I believe that I have become a better teacher through this experience in 501.
My teaching practices have changed over the course of this semester. I am more open to new teaching strategies concerning composition. We teach how we were taught, that is usually what happens to most teachers. Whether we learn from our own teachers in school or our peers in our department we tend to mimic those people. Stagnation becomes an issue for teachers who do not look to advance their teaching methods. Becoming stagnant causes out-dated teachers. I was beginning to feel that way. But now, I am looking outside the box and experimenting with the philosophies I have learned about composition. It is okay to use first person pronouns in a formal piece of writing, it is acceptable to not focus so much on grammatical mistakes and errors in an essay (that was a difficult one to accept), and technology is not the devil. I wouldn't say I have compromised my pedagogical beliefs in the classroom, only modified them. I think giving students more control over their writing allows them to produce a well-written document. Teaching them the processes of thinking, writing, articulating, listening, etc. empowers them to find success in any task they attempt to complete.
I feel I no longer need to focus on the modes of writing; I still need to teach the modes of writing as methods to communicate, but when to use those modes is more important than actually spending the time teaching them. Student need the freedom to find thier own voice in thier writing; once they do that, they will find success in a trusted learning environment only because the teacher allows for that to happen. I want my kids to be able to communicate what they think in a very clear, precise manner while having the ability to address many different types of audiences. The process by which it takes to get to the final convincing product is what matters most. They will be able to communicate, articulate, and influence many different people by thinking about what they have to say.
My teaching practices have changed over the course of this semester. I am more open to new teaching strategies concerning composition. We teach how we were taught, that is usually what happens to most teachers. Whether we learn from our own teachers in school or our peers in our department we tend to mimic those people. Stagnation becomes an issue for teachers who do not look to advance their teaching methods. Becoming stagnant causes out-dated teachers. I was beginning to feel that way. But now, I am looking outside the box and experimenting with the philosophies I have learned about composition. It is okay to use first person pronouns in a formal piece of writing, it is acceptable to not focus so much on grammatical mistakes and errors in an essay (that was a difficult one to accept), and technology is not the devil. I wouldn't say I have compromised my pedagogical beliefs in the classroom, only modified them. I think giving students more control over their writing allows them to produce a well-written document. Teaching them the processes of thinking, writing, articulating, listening, etc. empowers them to find success in any task they attempt to complete.
I feel I no longer need to focus on the modes of writing; I still need to teach the modes of writing as methods to communicate, but when to use those modes is more important than actually spending the time teaching them. Student need the freedom to find thier own voice in thier writing; once they do that, they will find success in a trusted learning environment only because the teacher allows for that to happen. I want my kids to be able to communicate what they think in a very clear, precise manner while having the ability to address many different types of audiences. The process by which it takes to get to the final convincing product is what matters most. They will be able to communicate, articulate, and influence many different people by thinking about what they have to say.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
My Teaching Philosophy
I believe all students can learn and they all have the same opportunity to be successful. There it is in a nutshell. I know it sounds generic, so I will explain.
As a teacher, I give all of my students the same opportunity to be successful in my classroom. What they decide to do with that opportunity is up to them. They choose to come to class, to do the work, to participate and learn. I cannot force that upon anyone. In order for that to happen, my students must feel safe in the environment I create as the teacher. I give my students a lot of freedom in the classroom. It is all about choices and consequences; and if they do not like the consequences, then they need to make the appropriate choices. I remind them that there are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened; then I ask them which category do they or will they belong.
Respect is key in this process of teaching. I respect my students; therefore they respect me. There may be some students who do not like me and visa verse, but we still have respect for one another. Because I respect them and they me, discipline is not an issue and they accept the consequences of their choices without complaint. It all comes down to do they want to be successful and graduate? I am there to provide assistance, guidance, and knowledge to help them be productive in an environment very foreign to them after graduation. I would hope they take from me what they need to prosper in society.
My teaching philosophy is not about English, composition, or Language Arts, it can't be. My teaching philosophy is about the students and their needs. Content will always be present, and I will teach them to be literate in all areas I can; but these kids are my future and my daughter's future, how do I prepare them to observe, participate, and lead so we all benefit?
As a teacher, I give all of my students the same opportunity to be successful in my classroom. What they decide to do with that opportunity is up to them. They choose to come to class, to do the work, to participate and learn. I cannot force that upon anyone. In order for that to happen, my students must feel safe in the environment I create as the teacher. I give my students a lot of freedom in the classroom. It is all about choices and consequences; and if they do not like the consequences, then they need to make the appropriate choices. I remind them that there are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened; then I ask them which category do they or will they belong.
Respect is key in this process of teaching. I respect my students; therefore they respect me. There may be some students who do not like me and visa verse, but we still have respect for one another. Because I respect them and they me, discipline is not an issue and they accept the consequences of their choices without complaint. It all comes down to do they want to be successful and graduate? I am there to provide assistance, guidance, and knowledge to help them be productive in an environment very foreign to them after graduation. I would hope they take from me what they need to prosper in society.
My teaching philosophy is not about English, composition, or Language Arts, it can't be. My teaching philosophy is about the students and their needs. Content will always be present, and I will teach them to be literate in all areas I can; but these kids are my future and my daughter's future, how do I prepare them to observe, participate, and lead so we all benefit?
Lindemann doesn't know Literature!
Okay, my biggest problem with Erika Lindemann is her idea of losing literature in a composition classroom. I understand her take on the composition classroom and that it is strictly to teach composition; but seriously, studnets need content in order to write. Literature offers a great springboard for composition; and if the teacher knows how to incorporate the literature into the curriculum without turning the classroom into a literature course, then why not use all forms of literature in a composition classroom?
Lindemann seems to go against what the other theorists believe. She wants a comp. class to be only a comp. class. Nevermind the social learning that Bruffe discusses, or the arguing Graff urges, the collaboration encouraged by Lunsford, and the cultural, personal, and academic discourses Bizzell wants in a classroom; no, no, no, only composition. That is what I got from Lindemann. Writing is difficult, and good writing is almost impossible according to her. I think she has it backwards. If a teacher uses fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc. in a composition classroom then teaches the students how to synthesize and analyze (how to think) then writing is meaningful. Outside of an English class students are going to need to know how to synthesize and analyze in any profession. It is the thinking and the skill that is required to write well.
I can teach Hamlet or Skinner's Walden Two to my composition students and teach them how to write in various genres using the literature. Look to the literature as a means for teaching social interaction, historical significance so our students are not culturally illiterate, and analysis of situation. I cannot embrace Ms. Lindemann and her theory about axing literature in a composition classroom. If that is the case, then let us go back to focusing solely on grammar, vocabulary, conventions and forget about how literature can assist in these areas in a composition classroom. I am sorry, but reading and speaking improve writing; and it is the teacher's responsibility to understand how to use literature to teach composition responsibly. Later Lindemann!
Lindemann seems to go against what the other theorists believe. She wants a comp. class to be only a comp. class. Nevermind the social learning that Bruffe discusses, or the arguing Graff urges, the collaboration encouraged by Lunsford, and the cultural, personal, and academic discourses Bizzell wants in a classroom; no, no, no, only composition. That is what I got from Lindemann. Writing is difficult, and good writing is almost impossible according to her. I think she has it backwards. If a teacher uses fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc. in a composition classroom then teaches the students how to synthesize and analyze (how to think) then writing is meaningful. Outside of an English class students are going to need to know how to synthesize and analyze in any profession. It is the thinking and the skill that is required to write well.
I can teach Hamlet or Skinner's Walden Two to my composition students and teach them how to write in various genres using the literature. Look to the literature as a means for teaching social interaction, historical significance so our students are not culturally illiterate, and analysis of situation. I cannot embrace Ms. Lindemann and her theory about axing literature in a composition classroom. If that is the case, then let us go back to focusing solely on grammar, vocabulary, conventions and forget about how literature can assist in these areas in a composition classroom. I am sorry, but reading and speaking improve writing; and it is the teacher's responsibility to understand how to use literature to teach composition responsibly. Later Lindemann!
Technology and Selfe
Cynthia Selfe obviously loves technology. She wants teachers and students alike to use it in the classroom. And I think she is absolutely right. We as educators must become literate in technology; and when we begin to refuse the technology, then it is time to retire or find a new job. Not only are we trying to prepare our students for a global society, as Yancey hopes, we are preparing ourselves for a paradigm shift in education. If we do not keep up with the current trends in our students' world, then we will not advance and will continue harming students' and their education. This is not your grandma's or mom's education any longer.
However, Selfe does not want teachers to teach students to be 'technology indulgers'. There has to be a happy medium; everything in moderation, right? Students need to know how to use academic and professional technology in order to be successful. They know how to play their xbox and Wii gaming systems (so do I, love it!), bypass filters on school computers (as do I ), and use their cell phones to the maximum capacity (the kids had to teach me that one). But what if they used all of their computer knowledge for good as well? I was surprised that I knew what twitter and tweet meant before they did. I also am utilizing my classroom web page for blogging, message boarding, on-line quizzes, homework drops, etc. so my students will have a heads-up in college over their peers. At least that is what I hope.
I understand that not all students have a personal computer, but I do not see that as something that can hinder a student's technological advancement in the classroom and world of academia. A lot of my students do not have computers at home, but we have seven libraries with several computer labs they have access to. I do not accept "I don't have a computer at home" or "my printer isn't working" as excuses any more; email me the work, hotmail will set up a free account for anyone, and I will help you with any problems you may encounter. This is where I disagree with Selfe. As an English teacher who uses technology quite regularly in my classroom, I do not see the technology as a means of oppression; it is definitely a means of liberation for anyone at any age. Technology does not discriminate; get with the times or fall behind.
However, Selfe does not want teachers to teach students to be 'technology indulgers'. There has to be a happy medium; everything in moderation, right? Students need to know how to use academic and professional technology in order to be successful. They know how to play their xbox and Wii gaming systems (so do I, love it!), bypass filters on school computers (as do I ), and use their cell phones to the maximum capacity (the kids had to teach me that one). But what if they used all of their computer knowledge for good as well? I was surprised that I knew what twitter and tweet meant before they did. I also am utilizing my classroom web page for blogging, message boarding, on-line quizzes, homework drops, etc. so my students will have a heads-up in college over their peers. At least that is what I hope.
I understand that not all students have a personal computer, but I do not see that as something that can hinder a student's technological advancement in the classroom and world of academia. A lot of my students do not have computers at home, but we have seven libraries with several computer labs they have access to. I do not accept "I don't have a computer at home" or "my printer isn't working" as excuses any more; email me the work, hotmail will set up a free account for anyone, and I will help you with any problems you may encounter. This is where I disagree with Selfe. As an English teacher who uses technology quite regularly in my classroom, I do not see the technology as a means of oppression; it is definitely a means of liberation for anyone at any age. Technology does not discriminate; get with the times or fall behind.
Cool, Yancey and Turner talked to each other!
I think it is fantastic that Rhonda had the opportunity to actually speak with the theorist she was presenting. What a great opportunity to combine what has been published and compare it to what is actually said by the person researched. KUDOS to you, Rhonda!
It seems to me that the more modern theorists are realizing that teaching and learning are changing and so must the classroom environment. Yancey says she is student-centered and knows that teachers have a 'lasing effect on our students" (Turner). Of course we do, depending on what level we teach, we see, talk, and spend more time with the kids in our classroom than they do with their parents (that's scary). We, as a teaching community, have a responsibility to nurture our students into productive and prosperous citizens once they leave our care. It takes a village to raise a child, right? No longer can teachers teach in the "vacuum" we so constantly refer to. Reading and writing are very important skills because the foster communication; but teachers can no longer be 'all about me and my knowledge', they need to be open to the knowledge and individuality of their students. That is what Yancey proposes.
From what I gather about Yancey, she wants teachers to hold themselves more accountable in the classroom. Her major questions seem to center around the student and their future productivity in society. The word literacy creeps up again and again. Literacy is no longer knowing how to read and write, but how to communicate. Rhonda said that Yancey believes that "creating writing publics creates the development of citizens...civic literacy is global." How are our students going to compete globally if we do not prepare them for a global society? Yancey obviously wants to give students the tools necessary for global competition and global success.
It seems to me that the more modern theorists are realizing that teaching and learning are changing and so must the classroom environment. Yancey says she is student-centered and knows that teachers have a 'lasing effect on our students" (Turner). Of course we do, depending on what level we teach, we see, talk, and spend more time with the kids in our classroom than they do with their parents (that's scary). We, as a teaching community, have a responsibility to nurture our students into productive and prosperous citizens once they leave our care. It takes a village to raise a child, right? No longer can teachers teach in the "vacuum" we so constantly refer to. Reading and writing are very important skills because the foster communication; but teachers can no longer be 'all about me and my knowledge', they need to be open to the knowledge and individuality of their students. That is what Yancey proposes.
From what I gather about Yancey, she wants teachers to hold themselves more accountable in the classroom. Her major questions seem to center around the student and their future productivity in society. The word literacy creeps up again and again. Literacy is no longer knowing how to read and write, but how to communicate. Rhonda said that Yancey believes that "creating writing publics creates the development of citizens...civic literacy is global." How are our students going to compete globally if we do not prepare them for a global society? Yancey obviously wants to give students the tools necessary for global competition and global success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
