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 :-)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
