ENGL 3400 Jan 27

Today the class workshopped their first draft of their first paper. The workshop guide that Dr. Insenga provided includes reading aloud. I like this because it reinforces the idea that students should write in a way that sounds logical, not like bogus weird stuff intending to sound smart. Also, it included summarizing the partner's argument from memory, reinforcing the emphasis on logical, clear argumentation. The workshop seems introduction-focused. It's new to me. It seems like a way to focus on structure and argumentation without all the talk about structure that intimidates students and potentially shuts them down before really beginning. Also something new to me, the workshop included a prediction of the rest of the partner's paper. Reinforces the logical progression of argumentation, that there's a strategy. It's not random or based on a list; it's intuitive. I noticed the student that didn't do much work on the draft. He tried to charm his way into disguise. This anxiety actually also made him a poor peer review partner. That pair was the least connected. I could tell that they didn't get much out of the peer review. Actually, his partner stayed after class and talked with me a bit about her argument development and interpretation. Dr. Insenga described a helpful way for me to think about conclusions: It should explain how the paper contributes to the current scholarly discussion of the text. I reflected quite a bit on my own teaching. Some notes: examining e-prime in terms of negotiating power. Malcom X's "The Bullet or The Ballot" would work well for that. Approaching the issue of what exactly we mean by the term text in a composition course. The terror of the blinking cursor: this was a real challenge for my students last semester, something to really consider. It might be one of the greatest challenges of the composition classroom. I'd like to experiment with which one works better: peer review or workshop? I used the work workshop at the beginning of this post, but I actually mean peer review. I think each method has its own set of benefits and draw backs. Students use software like Easy Bib, and I'm curious how helpful that is. I don't usually trust those types of aids. One student made the observation that potentially the most responsible way to use it would be to simply use it then proofread. The student would both know the form and use the aid. I've seen how meditative activities can really ground a classroom. I'd like to devise some more meditative activities. I thought today back to the English Language Acquisition curriculum development that I worked on years and years ago, and I think it would be helpful to remember the concept that a student cannot produce something that he or she cannot first identify. Develop receptive skills before productive skills. Again, just as Dr. Davidson taught in his pedagogy class, Dr. Insenga's review reminded me of the importance of deferring classroom discussion of form, privileging content. I think I sometimes overwhelm students because I want them to have the tools to make a perfect paper. Form will always distract from the real hard work of argumentation. I meant to be more observant of Dr. Insenga's lesson plan organization; however, I really got a lot out of the peer review. I have a meeting with her on Monday to discuss co-teaching and preparations for my own teaching days. This will really be helpful because I still feel very limbo-ish in this ambiguous position between student and teacher. I hope that meeting will define this role a little more clearly for me.