Tag Archives: Blau

The Real Thing

Down Memory Lane

Reading Blau’s explanation of background knowledge reminded me of the early portion of my undergraduate studies. I was already declared as an English Major. I had completed the GenEd requirements and was beginning the serious study of literature. I cannot pass my mind back far enough to remember the exact texts that we were reading and studying, but I do remember that they all seemed to refer in some way, either through a direct reference or an implied connection, to Shakespeare. This may have been a factor of the style of teaching or the prevailing theory of literary criticism of the time. Or it may have been a result of the canon of that time. This did take place at that time in our ancient history when only dead white males were seen as worthy of study. (Though in an aside, it was at this time that I encountered Eudora Welty, Flannery O’Connor, and Joyce Carol Oates. Perhaps we were on the cusp of the changing canon and I am not as old as I thought.) Anyway, whatever the reason, that is a separate discussion than the one that I want to broach here.

Back to the point, everything I read for class seemed to point to Shakespeare. I decided that if I took a class devoted entirely to the study of the Bard and his masterful creations, I would then know the source for all other literary works. I would then have the requisite background knowledge to engage in reading, interpretation, and criticism, the three fundamental skills that Scholes and Blau refer to (Blau 50-51). So it was with great anticipation that I registered for a class of Shakespeare Studies to be taught by a recognized Shakespeare scholar. At last I would be studying where it all began. This class would introduce me to the very root and of literary studies!

Imagine my disappointment! Not only was Shakespeare not the original source, he borrowed HEAVILY, some even say he plagiarized. Was I know to read Holinshed’s Chronicles the source for many of the history plays, The Decameron, the source for All’s Well that Ends Well, Arthur Brooke’s poem “The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet,” and Plutarch’s Lives, the source for Antony and Cleopatra? I could have spent the rest of my undergraduate career searching out and reading these sometimes obscure texts. I was not only disappointed, I was disillusioned. How could a normal person, even an English major, be expected to read all these precursors? It was not possible. There was not possible way for a person to read all that material; therefore, I reasoned, there was not way to really understand the more modern, in comparison, texts. What then was the point?

At this time I was not considering a career as a teacher. I really had not thought past graduation. I was simply an English major, attempting to understand the literature before me and to make sense of the requirements involved in analyzing and writing about it. Now I question if all of this background information is truly needed. Here is a story/workshop for your consideration.

In my literature classes, each student chooses a day to lead the discussion of the story/poem assigned for that day. In a recent class, a student, we’ll call him Frank, was to lead to the discussion of Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” Those of you who are familiar with this poem will know that it is filled with references to other poems and the Biblical sources. Frank did an exemplary job leading the discussion. He offered opinions as to interpretations and criticism. He asked questions about places that puzzled him (moments of difficulty). It was obvious that he had done some outside reading because he mentioned stream of consciousness writing/thought and discussed the life of Eliot. It was also clear that he had carefully read the poem, including the footnotes. He dutifully commented on each place that a footnote mentioned Eliot’s reference to another work of literature. Yet is was equally obvious that he had not read these background sources and did not always understand the allusions being made. However, he did an EXCELLENT job of coming to grips with the (a) meaning for the poem. Did Frank miss some of the more subtle innuendos of the poem? Yes. Did this hurt his understanding of the poem? No.

So my conclusion is that background knowledge is not always necessary. In fact, I think it sometimes can be harmful. Blau mentions that many middle-aged adults of his acquaintance who thought they had happy childhoods now realize that they were abused. I contend that this is an interpretation based on newly acquired background knowledge. Perhaps they are looking at their childhoods in comparison to the childhood experiences of others. Perhaps we now hear so much in the news about abuse that we see it everywhere. Perhaps what was a normal childhood at the time that these people were growing up would be considered abuse but was standard for the time. My father began work at the age of 12. He borrowed money from the bank, bough seed, planted, tended and harvested a crop. He repaid the bank, bought his school clothes and reserved enough money to buy seed for the next year. Was this abuse? By today’s standards, with our current background knowledge, yes. By the standards of the time in which he grew up, no.

Background knowledge can be useful. However, it is not the end-all and be-all of literary studies. In some instances it can certainly add to the reading of literature or lives. However, we need to approach literature, especially in the introductory classes, with the belief that literature can be read and appreciated without all of that extra information.

It is too bad I am out of time and space. I would love to tell you about asking my Mom to fix me a bowl of soup after reading “Any Minute Mom Should Come Blasting Through the Door.”

Edith

Musings

For this week’s entry I will borrow Blau’s alternative assignment of “a collection of loosely connected notes or comments on a text or topic, each identified by a heading or number, requiring no transitions between them.” I choose to do this because I had disparate reactions to the readings and because I have never tried this type of writing. It is engrained in me that my writing must meet the standard criteria of academic texts: have one central point that is fully developed through a series of well organized and interconnected paragraphs. So in the spirit of exploration and taking risks, I will try something new.

1. Elbow’s argument that writing should precede reading because filling student’s heads with the ideas of others stifles their own creativity sounds like the no-content curriculum that was popular in the 1990’s. As Elbow’s article was published in 1993, there is little wonder that there are similarities. The concept of a no-content curriculum was that the psyches of children would be damaged by telling them things, even things such as basic math facts and sentence structure (Breed). So teachers were expected to teach students how to do things without teaching them any facts. Imagine teaching a student to read without being able to assign them a text because it might inhibit the student’s development as an individual. Luckily, this theory of teaching fell out of favor and we moved on to other ideas.

We also need to remember that students do not come to our classes as empty vessels that need only be filled with wisdom. Instead they come to our class rooms filled with their own ideas and experiences. Sometimes this is a good thing; other times it is not. Remember the film we watched the first night of class? Those students not only had mis-information, they refused to give up on the ideas they had. It is sometimes painful to read student essays in which students are assigned to argue their side of a belief. While I will readily defend a person’s right to his belief, I will also insist that person be able to defend that belief. Students often have firm beliefs. The believe things because it is what they have been taught, it is what they have heard, it is what they want to believe, or it is what is beneficial to them to believe. A little bit of reading often changes their minds.

In an ideal world, emphasizing writing over reading would be marvelous. However, in the real world, how can we expect students to discuss something of which they are not even aware? If we assign readings to students to give them new view points, we will encourage them to examine their own beliefs along with the ideas in the reading.

2. Blau mentions several assignments that sound like some of the things that I already do in other formats in my classes. He mentions others that I would like to try. (I wonder if I can change the assignments in the middle of the semester. Perhaps not) I am particularly interested in using technology to teach literature and composition. Some of Blau’s assignments could easily be transferred to on-line assignments that could be used in hybrid of DL classes to enhance either F2F meetings or discussion boards.

For instance, I already assign reading journals in my classes. Students are to record first impressions, areas of interest, questions, or any comments they would like to make. These journal entries could be done as a class blog, allowing classmates the opportunity to share difficulties or perhaps offer answers in follow-up comments. This would also make grading easier because the students would never know which entries would be read by the teacher on a specific week. It is also easy to simply count the number of entries made by each member of the blog. This would not necessarily check for content, but it could certainly satisfy the collection portion of Blau’s portfolio assignment.

We will return to the idea teaching literature with technology in my teaching presentation. I look forward to your comments on what I finally come up with. This is something that I probably can introduce into my current classes. Perhaps I should practice on them?

3. Okay, so I wrote two completely unrelated sections in this paper. I edited the transition between them several times because I kept putting in a transition. Old habits are hard to break. If there is no connection between the sections of my paper, do I need a conclusion? I think not. BY!

Edith

Works Cited

Breed, Jerry and Mary Breed. “No-Content Curriculum.” The Washington Post 1995, May 14. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from National Newspapers (9) database. (Document ID: 19564506).