Peter Barry describes post-structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism the way younger generations would describe older generations or visa verse. I couldn't help but think of the arguments between generations of people. Page 60 to 61 really gave me this image because Barry was comparing structuralists to post-structuralists. Do we not learn from our predecessors and then take what they teach us and make it better or unique or whatever else to show how we can make a difference? It is basically organization vs. chaos and that is how my 83 year old grandmother views my generation - very chaotic. It's not like it used to be in the 'old days', but neither is anything else; and that is what makes the difference between the two. What is being said does not seem to matter as much as how it is being said which brings us back to what rhetoric really is - how the message is delivered. The post-structuralists and postmodernists break away from what was accepted as real and true and developed their own realities and truths - that is a big step to take. Longing for the past does not accomplish anything for the future. But what we have read throughout the semester thus far is a scaffold of what the ancients developed long ago.
I have read Barthe's "Death of the Author" and I really like the last line of the essay "...the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author." The death of the author does allow the reader a certain amount of freedom as Barry points out (65), but don't we need some structure in order to understand what the product is supposed to be; or can chaos and freedom give us the final product as well? Individual interpretation is going to happen and rhetoric is rhetoric no matter how you look at it; it is the theory that determines how we will interpret or analyze a specific piece of work, from music to art to literature.
Post whatisms? I am finally starting to see and understand what my teachers' theories were when I was a student and I find it fascinating. I am also starting to see and understand what my colleagues' theories might be. What is even more exciting for me is that I am starting to match my pedagogy to certain theories based on what I have learned; I have always known my pedagogy, and it changes from class to class, year to year; but it has been fun matching it to the theories, people, authors, philosophers, etc. in the literature we have read.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Finding Meaning
Okay, here is what I got out of this week's reading:
The audience, no matter the level of education, can interpret a text based on his or her ability to relate to the text; but the reader should not pay much attention to the context or author of the text.
Do we interpret a text based on our personal background knowledge? Or, do we interpret the the text based on the author's time, place, knowledge, and identity? OR, do we interpret a text based solely on the words in the text? I seem to struggle with these questions. Does the interpretation change once the reader knows and understands who wrote the text and in what context? I started thinking about form, content, and context (again) and their relationship. Basically this is what I came up with:
Language determines the meaning, which in turn helps the interpretation in the readers' minds. Based on what the readers know of the language, interpretations vary. If the readers knows anything about the author, interpretations may change. If we only look at the words, language, and structure of the literature, we can criticize and analyze the literature without worrying about the meaning, because we are not interpreting the meaning. Then do interpretation and analysis/criticism mean the same thing? I thought about techniques I use to teach literature and determined that both can be accomplished, but interpretation and analysis/criticism are not the same thing. I think interpretation is looking at why something is said or written to find meaning, and analysis/criticism is how it is spoken or written to identify structure, form, and style. I do agree to analyze literature the author must be divorced from the text and the audience must look at the structure, form, and language. Interpretation and analysis can coexist because they are related, but not the same.
I really like what Culler has to say about literature and interpretation: "...one should seek ways of analyzing the work as an objective artifact" (100). If we treat literature as an 'artifact', then we must know from where and when it came. But to be objective, we must not have any preconceived notions about the artifact. This is nearly impossible because, as humans, we always bring what we know about something to the table. If we take the author and meaning away from the work, will the work have the same affect on us? The language should be doing the speaking, not the author; therefore, from where and when the artifact came should not matter. Poetry is a perfect example of this. Content in poetry can and should be immortal; the style, form, and language speaks to us without identification of the time, place, and poet; but once the poet is identified, then interpretation will probably change.
I think about the 'classics' we teach in high school; three examples would be: Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Frankenstein. These three texts live on today because students can relate to them in the 21st century. Can they relate to them based solely on the language, structure, or form - analysis? Sure. Do the readers relate to the stories because of their interpretation of meaning? Absolutely. I see both sides of the argument because I have taught the arguments. To only look at language, form, and structure allows the reader to analyze style; to look at the meaning behind the words based on background knowledge and information gives way to personal interpretation. Connection to literature is vital to interpretation. Analysis does lead to interpretation when reading these texts. Once the author is added to the equation, then the text may become much more clear to the audience and the meaning probably will change.
Back to my original questions: do we interpret a text based on our background knowledge or the language and structure? This is a big shift from what the ancients believed, but it is still based on those beliefs. Eloquent language can move, influence, and educate any class because of its beauty. Literary criticism/analysis should be based on how the text relays information and not the meaning of what is being said - I agree with the readings in that regard; however, interpretation is a different category. It's similar to rhetoric - is it an art or is it a skill?
The audience, no matter the level of education, can interpret a text based on his or her ability to relate to the text; but the reader should not pay much attention to the context or author of the text.
Do we interpret a text based on our personal background knowledge? Or, do we interpret the the text based on the author's time, place, knowledge, and identity? OR, do we interpret a text based solely on the words in the text? I seem to struggle with these questions. Does the interpretation change once the reader knows and understands who wrote the text and in what context? I started thinking about form, content, and context (again) and their relationship. Basically this is what I came up with:
Language determines the meaning, which in turn helps the interpretation in the readers' minds. Based on what the readers know of the language, interpretations vary. If the readers knows anything about the author, interpretations may change. If we only look at the words, language, and structure of the literature, we can criticize and analyze the literature without worrying about the meaning, because we are not interpreting the meaning. Then do interpretation and analysis/criticism mean the same thing? I thought about techniques I use to teach literature and determined that both can be accomplished, but interpretation and analysis/criticism are not the same thing. I think interpretation is looking at why something is said or written to find meaning, and analysis/criticism is how it is spoken or written to identify structure, form, and style. I do agree to analyze literature the author must be divorced from the text and the audience must look at the structure, form, and language. Interpretation and analysis can coexist because they are related, but not the same.
I really like what Culler has to say about literature and interpretation: "...one should seek ways of analyzing the work as an objective artifact" (100). If we treat literature as an 'artifact', then we must know from where and when it came. But to be objective, we must not have any preconceived notions about the artifact. This is nearly impossible because, as humans, we always bring what we know about something to the table. If we take the author and meaning away from the work, will the work have the same affect on us? The language should be doing the speaking, not the author; therefore, from where and when the artifact came should not matter. Poetry is a perfect example of this. Content in poetry can and should be immortal; the style, form, and language speaks to us without identification of the time, place, and poet; but once the poet is identified, then interpretation will probably change.
I think about the 'classics' we teach in high school; three examples would be: Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Frankenstein. These three texts live on today because students can relate to them in the 21st century. Can they relate to them based solely on the language, structure, or form - analysis? Sure. Do the readers relate to the stories because of their interpretation of meaning? Absolutely. I see both sides of the argument because I have taught the arguments. To only look at language, form, and structure allows the reader to analyze style; to look at the meaning behind the words based on background knowledge and information gives way to personal interpretation. Connection to literature is vital to interpretation. Analysis does lead to interpretation when reading these texts. Once the author is added to the equation, then the text may become much more clear to the audience and the meaning probably will change.
Back to my original questions: do we interpret a text based on our background knowledge or the language and structure? This is a big shift from what the ancients believed, but it is still based on those beliefs. Eloquent language can move, influence, and educate any class because of its beauty. Literary criticism/analysis should be based on how the text relays information and not the meaning of what is being said - I agree with the readings in that regard; however, interpretation is a different category. It's similar to rhetoric - is it an art or is it a skill?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Science, Theology, and Rhetoric
What I find most interesting about this week's reading is how rhetoric has broken into different branches and starts to evolve to include theology and science; the precursor to separation of church and state? Prior to the Renaissance period, rhetoric focused primarily on speech and how the spoken language influenced people. But during this time, philosophers and rhetors have dissected this "art" into a science to include more than just the educated and privileged aristocrats. At the beginning of chapter five Conley states "...the conviction that knowledge ought to serve practical ends. Human learning ought to have some utility for life; education should instruct not only the intellect but also the will; and the only effective means of conveying truth is by persuasion and eloquent discussion, not by logical demonstration." (110). This seems to be the theme throughout the Renaissance. Logical demonstration was not the goal of rhetoric, but offering purpose to existence was.
During this time in history, there was a lot of conflict. In times of conflict, people look to leaders - who should be educated and well-versed - for guidance and support. Therefore, leaders looked to the old wise folks for guidance to influence and ease the public. It seems Quintilian and Cicero had the greatest influence for the rhetors of the Renaissance. The idea that the leaders looked to the ancients is found on pg. 113, "Most of those Florentines, who could by virtue of their education and standing call themselves 'humanists' were not just scholars but politically active men. Many of them were professional orators who were esteemed because they advocated a code of civic duty, gave education a genuine relevance to political life, and were themselves accomplished speakers, as close as could be imagined to Quintilian's vir bonus dicendi peritus."
But what I really see happening here is that the general public is being allowed an education. Elitism still exists, but it is not as prominent when it comes to education. "...a liberal education, the possession of technical skills that made the active life feasible, and good character" are things all men and women could attain (114). One did not have to be eloquent in order to be wise. As was discussed in class weeks past, what does it mean to be morally good and is a good orator steeped in morality? The impression I get is that Conley believes one cannot be morally good and be a politician at the same time. Evidence of this can be found on page 115, "...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality."
As to what I said at the beginning of this blog, what interests me most is the inclusion of theology and science. Breaking something down into its simplest forms is what makes it so easy to understand. Looking at the parts of the whole (metonymy and synecdoche) and the relationships between parts (metaphor and irony) are what help the hearer/audience interpret the message. I think a good orator and morally right orator is one who can do this and have the audience understand what the message is. To be virtuous and true is to be able to talk to the audience. It shouldn't' t matter the discourse, the message should stay the same. That is where the oxymoron of a morally good politician is difficult to understand. When something is put in its simplest form, it is easy to understand, therefore, easy to argue. Eloquence does not get in the way of wisdom.
Augustine states in Matsen on pg. 372, "...although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in a subdued manner when something is being explained, moderately when a thing is being criticised or commended; but when something ought to be done, and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not wish to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts." To move the heart is the ultimate goal of rhetoric. How one goes about doing that is based on the discourse. Tone, inflection, vocabulary, etc. all play a role in moving the heart. But what I see as being true and virtuous is keeping the message the same no matter the audience.
So to sum up, rhetoric has transformed from the ancients, but the ancients have not been forgotten. They sometimes are not recognized or credited by the new philosophers and rhetors, but they have influenced the Renaissance period. Rhetoric transformed to include theology and science, but isn't the goal virtually the same?
During this time in history, there was a lot of conflict. In times of conflict, people look to leaders - who should be educated and well-versed - for guidance and support. Therefore, leaders looked to the old wise folks for guidance to influence and ease the public. It seems Quintilian and Cicero had the greatest influence for the rhetors of the Renaissance. The idea that the leaders looked to the ancients is found on pg. 113, "Most of those Florentines, who could by virtue of their education and standing call themselves 'humanists' were not just scholars but politically active men. Many of them were professional orators who were esteemed because they advocated a code of civic duty, gave education a genuine relevance to political life, and were themselves accomplished speakers, as close as could be imagined to Quintilian's vir bonus dicendi peritus."
But what I really see happening here is that the general public is being allowed an education. Elitism still exists, but it is not as prominent when it comes to education. "...a liberal education, the possession of technical skills that made the active life feasible, and good character" are things all men and women could attain (114). One did not have to be eloquent in order to be wise. As was discussed in class weeks past, what does it mean to be morally good and is a good orator steeped in morality? The impression I get is that Conley believes one cannot be morally good and be a politician at the same time. Evidence of this can be found on page 115, "...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality."
As to what I said at the beginning of this blog, what interests me most is the inclusion of theology and science. Breaking something down into its simplest forms is what makes it so easy to understand. Looking at the parts of the whole (metonymy and synecdoche) and the relationships between parts (metaphor and irony) are what help the hearer/audience interpret the message. I think a good orator and morally right orator is one who can do this and have the audience understand what the message is. To be virtuous and true is to be able to talk to the audience. It shouldn't' t matter the discourse, the message should stay the same. That is where the oxymoron of a morally good politician is difficult to understand. When something is put in its simplest form, it is easy to understand, therefore, easy to argue. Eloquence does not get in the way of wisdom.
Augustine states in Matsen on pg. 372, "...although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in a subdued manner when something is being explained, moderately when a thing is being criticised or commended; but when something ought to be done, and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not wish to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts." To move the heart is the ultimate goal of rhetoric. How one goes about doing that is based on the discourse. Tone, inflection, vocabulary, etc. all play a role in moving the heart. But what I see as being true and virtuous is keeping the message the same no matter the audience.
So to sum up, rhetoric has transformed from the ancients, but the ancients have not been forgotten. They sometimes are not recognized or credited by the new philosophers and rhetors, but they have influenced the Renaissance period. Rhetoric transformed to include theology and science, but isn't the goal virtually the same?
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Art of Elegance
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.
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, 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
