Narcisissm...or just plain teaching.

As teachers narcissism is almost required. We have to enjoy listening to ourselves, looking at our same creation (be it seating charts, room decorations, etc) day in and out, but what about in our pedagogy?
Our students come from various backgrounds as we all know, and as Schneider addresses in her essay, so how do we teach in a way that doesn't exclude a group? She says, "Teaching students that writing is an act of hope, a determination to go on rather than be done, a decision to make a difference for the better, seems a more productive use of time than teaching them to feel OK about themselves by encouraging them to see only themselves everywhere they look" (931).
Some of our theory attempts to take away the differences we have in order to make us all one, equal. This is NOT a bad thing, but we do need to celebrate our differences through writing. By exalting their differences they will give themselves hope, and hopefully disintegrate the unknown segregation they have in the class as Schneider pointed out.
This essay makes me wonder if I make exceptions or act differently with students of a different race. As mentioned, we have loads of different backgrounds, so will I unknowingly give preference to students who come from a similar background to myself? This is something I will be monitoring though my pedagogy in time to come. It also makes me want to sway more toward the writing side of the pendulum so I can maybe treat the study more fairly...that is...if I am bias...

We - are- fam-i-ly!

Let's be honest, the initial thought of a Rhetorical Family Tree was my first impression of Dr. Souder, and after listening to her talk about her multiple job experiences I thought she was stuck in the fourth grade teacher mode.
But, being the sport that I am, I grumbled under my breath and started digging. What this project has ended up being is an opportunity to correspond with colleagues, influences, and scholars nation(and for some world)-wide. What an experience! Digging to find influences, making connections with scholars such as Faigley, Fish, and Elbow is more than I could have imagined.
The biggest impact this project has had is bringing these rhetors down to earth for me. Everyone is human (even Socrates), and humans interact. The e-mails that I have sent and received this semester reminded me that teachers like to talk about their job. I love working with other colleagues to see what they are doing, how they learned to do it, and modifying it to work for me. This has been the experience from our readings, from our discussion both before and during class, and from these projects/papers. The rhetors we discuss are no different, only some of them would rather talk about themselves and what they can do to help you than listen :-).

The Tree: I am a simple man. I think a real tree would be awesome with ourselves as the dirt, our professors as the roots, their teachers as the trunk, and expand further. If we trace it back to Aristotle, he can be the sun or something -- photosynthesis gets its energy from the sun...makes sense in my head :-)

Cooperative Theory

Faigley's piece from this week's assignment discusses the expressive, cognitive, and social views of writing disciplines.
The expressive view allows a "person the integrity to dominate his subject with a pattern both fresh and original" (654). This movement was one that prominent rhetor Peter Elbow follows and often deals with experiments in composing. Cognitive viewing had to do with heurisitcs and analysis, but very little to do with actual composition. Lastly, the social view pulls together a number of disciplines and holds that "human language can be understood only from the perspective of a society rather than a single individual" (659).
The social view is much like the cooperative learning that was in the reading last week -- pulling minds together to find a truth (little t) that all can benefit from.
What vexes me in the article is that none of the three views discusses the actual act of composing. They discuss the what should be in pre-writing, but little with the composition process. Why leave out he most important part?

SUPER RHETOR!!

One thought that stood out to me specifically after class was when Dr. Souder was reminded of who Howard Gardner was and was almost baffled at herself for the mistake. As educators and those totally engrossed in the academy, we need to, at times take a post-modernist approach to our lives and detatch ourselves from the "center" and remember our roots in pedagogy.
As we decenter ourselves, we look at the world of pedagogy in a new light; approach classroom management, literature, and composition in a different way. Just as Kenneth Bruffee proposes in his essay on collaborative learning. According to the presentation on Neitzche, the meaning of literature is open to interpretation and that so-called Superman is the altering factor and changes as knowledge changes.
Knowledge, however, changes for people at different paces. All a person needs to do is observe any classroom and notice the different abilities that students have. This is why Bruffee's recommendation to have students and teachers learn collaboratively, and go against the Cartesian model of "to know is to see" is beneficial. Bruffee suggests that we "accept the premise that knowledge is an artifact created by a community of knowledgeable peers constituted by the language of that community and that learning is a social not an individual process" (555). Allowing the community of learners to work together can benefit students more in literary interpretation and in language learning as Neitzche also stated that Language was not essential or inherent.
De-centering ourselves and allowing for a new look at pedagogy can lead to great inclusions such as collaborative learning to take hold and enhance student learning. We can't always be the Superman in our classrooms -- sometimes we have to let the student be the Superman and come in to save us.

If a butterfly flaps its wings in China, does it cause a hurricane in Florida?

Hairston's essay was particularly intriguing to me, as apparently it has been to many others. I took note to the "paradigm shift" noted and it was a revelation that each of our major theorists were the ones to shift the paradigm of their time (439).
Astell, of course, brought about this movement of feminism. It began with one book, gained momentum hundreds of years later, and is now a hot topic in many literature classes and circles. Blair's emphasis on taste, according to Agnew's essay, "illustrate his focus on teachings students the processes through which discourse is received as well as produced" (25). Lastly, Campbell brings the passions to the forefront of rhetoric by using Aristotle and his theories of Pathe and Hexis.
These theorists all shifted the paradigm of rhetoric in their own unique way and helped us to look at composition through a new glass.
This brings me to my next point. How are we going to shift the paradigm of composition? The point of these research papers is to dig deeper, the find that one area that hasn't been examined in composition theory and put in our oar. Will our mini butterfly flap begin a paradigm shift that our texts believe comp theory so desperately needs? This is what is driving my research, and we'll see if CSU-Pueblo's butterfly can create a hurricane in theory.

Reticent Writing, Reading, and Speaking

It was truly a pleasure having Dr. Burns sit in on class this week and, if only for a brief moment, answer some of our blogging questions.
Another pleasure was hearing from other groups on their speech topics, and taking notes to further my own pedagogy statement. One element of the reticent writer section that I hadn't thought much about was the rules of cultures and abilities. Pierre Bourdieu makes the claim that there are certain rules and there have to be initiations to be able to speak certain ways. Is this the same for writing?
In reading the Blair article by Lois Agnew (I couldn't speak in class so I read while my students worked), Agnew makes the claim from Horner that "Written and oral skills were taught together throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in British Universities. 'instruction in one reinforcing instruction in the other" (28). We have strayed from this. Reticent writers, if I had to guess, are probably reticent speakers and readers. To fix this, educators will need to begin having students compose for oral presentation.
Something to think about in pedagogy: how often do we make students read aloud, or are we worried we will embarrass students? What is more important: teaching or building self esteem? I'm going with teaching, but I may be wrong.

Lockeing it down!

The presentations this week were very efficient and great for the purpose of covering a great deal of rhetoric in a small period of time. The presentation that Johanna gave on Vico was especially good as I wanted to understand more about his three stages of "nature, manners, law and the government: the ages of Gods, Heroes, and Man" (Maiullari 2). I do, however, see how another one of our rhetoricians, Locke, and Vico would have absolutely gone to battle over the ideas of human knowledge according to the ages, and Locke's "blank slate" ideal.

According to Vico, humans are predisposed to a particular knowledge and we can only rarely access the knowledge of the heroes. How then, do heroes become heroes? Are they predisposed to a different realm of understanding? Did Odysseus know more than the average human, and can he then access the knowledge of the Gods on rare occasion? We are privy to certain information just because of our birth. Knowledge such as survival, reproduction, and defense is in my mind, bred into our brains, and it is built upon through experience.

Locke believed that humans were born with a blank slate and everything we learned was through experience. If this is the case, then how do people who have never been stuck in the snow come out alive? There has to be some predisposed knowledge on survival. What about someone who has never fought. I, for one, have not been in a fight, but my first human instinct is to cover my pretty face and protect my vital organs from hits. Is there an experience that teaches us this? According to Locke, we would use our senses to determine these reactions. I, personally, would prefer to avoid getting punched before deciding whether or not to experience it again.

We are privy to certain information because of our nature, and we are then supposed to build on this base as we go -- through reflection? Through the senses? I'm not sure how we all grow in our knowledge base, but we surely do. We do, however need to be wise in our learning because, according to both, wisdom is key in obtaining knowledge.

Unless of course you use a syllogism...