(Instead of writing comments on paper as I read and then putting them in a coherent text, I stuck post-its in places throughout the chapters so my comments may seem a bit disjointed).

Chapter 8 – bottom of 169

I do like the idea of using a template to lay the foundation of an essay.  (It reminds me of a technique I use to engage my ten-year old son to write a story, which he hates to do-which kills me-anyway, I write several sentences leaving blank spaces that he must fill with the character’s name, description; the setting. Then using dialogue and exclamatory sentences, with plenty of blank spaces, he’ll develop the plot and finish the story. He’ll even edit before sharing it with me).  But this exercise is in addition to the work he must independently produce in school. My thought? Would the template prove to be a guide or a crutch for older students?

  Chapter 9 – bottom of pg178

…..”suggests to me that they (Smith and Rabinowitz) do not expect as much from eleventh-graders as I think they are capable of producing.” My initial thought was how would Graff know what they are capable of..unless he is speaking in more general terms that, as a whole, teachers have low (or lowered) student expectations.  And if that is the case, why? To lessen their disappointment?  Even as a long-term substitute or when I taught two-week, self-contained classes at an elementary school on the modified schedule, I had always incorporated my expectations into my lesson plans. Then on the first day, within the first twenty minutes, I’d call a class meeting to share my expectations with them. But I’d still be disappointed either because their behaviour or effort was less than desirable and acceptable .  I also found myself holding GT students to a higher level  because they’re supposedly the “cream of the crop.”  Several times, usually at lunch, I expressed my frustrations to senior teachers who would patiently listen, while nodding their heads, agreeing with what I’d said and then tell me to keep it up because they felt kids just didn’t have a sense for what an expectation is, in part, because nothing was/is expected of them at home.  It was exhausting though at times.

Chapter 10

Stating your love of literature/learning is the equivalent of a prospective med student stating they love to help people. So not only is it important to answer the “So what” or “Who cares” question as Graff says, but I think marketing of one-self is also vital in these select postions. (Not that I do this, being a rather under-spoken person, more on this later).

Chapter 11 – bottom pg 222

“It is self-defeating to decline to introduce any text or subject that figures to engage students who will otherwise tune out academic work entirely.”  I recall a mother complaining to me that her athletically inclined son could not use sports for his current event assignments, which was truly unfortunate because that was the only thing he was interested in at the time.

top of pg 226

last sentence before next section.

In reference to my previous comment of being under-spoken, I was the generation before educators took to promoting girls in academics.  Coupled with the fact that my family did not openly discuss any stimulating issues like religion, politics, and sex, and being raised to speak only when I had something nice to say, left me feeling hollow many a time, especially as an undergrad.  I often wondered how an out-spoken female student developed her ideas/opinions when I  wasn’t even aware of an issue.  I did feel more comfortable speaking aloud in an all- female class (one in four years), though I did scuff at my mother’s suggestion of attending an all-girls college. (Which was due to attending an all-girls weekend as a high school senior and truly not fitting in with the girls in my group who all wore pearl necklaces, and white mini-skirts with colorful underwear showing through).

Any further comments I’ll express in class.

Susan

In reading Gerald Graff’s book, I’m able to put into perspective the past actions of professors as an undergraduate in the mid-eighties.  I started college at American University in D.C.. An initial shocker was the large number of students, my classmates, that had graduated from a private high school.  Already, I felt less qualified to be there.

Having always been a reader and writer and therefore comfortable in my skills, imagine my shock, when at the beginning of my first semester in English Comp., the professor told me my writing was backwards!  I figured her being British had something to do with her not appreciating my abilities.  Yet she never defined, nor aided to correct my backwardness, just continued with the criticism.  

If that wasn’t bad enough, during my first biology class, the professor- a PHD- concluded his lecture on the human body with the words, “Do you believe me?” After momentary silence, most of us agreed with the data he had given us and what we had diligently taken notes on, only to discover that most of it was not accurate. He ended class ranting about our need to Question Authority!

So, feeling pumped-up from that lecture, I tried this ‘questioning’ with the British instructor and guess what?  She would have none of it. She felt I was being rude. (Little did she know how much courage it required of me to speak, never mind ask questions).

During my second semester, when I asked my American English teacher if she found my writing to be backwards, she said, “no-just wordy.”  Was that all?

After two years,  I transferred to Univ. of Md at College Park.  Many people questioned my rationale for leaving ‘prestigious’ AU for a state school.   

Although many people fondly recall their undergrad years, I don’t. I followed the rules and degree outlines and graduated almost as clueless as the day I arrived. The irony is that I had graduated both high school and college with honors, yet felt so totally unprepared for t he world.

I find Graff’s idea of restructuring higher education invigorating, but daunting because already I have run into the attitude supporting the more traditional way simply because that’s the way it has always been. 

Susan

  Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of theories, especially of those that are past their prime.  Would knowing about New Criticism and the rest have been beneficial years ago in my early attempts in understanding a whole text? Perhaps, but now, in trying to learn and understand teaching of literature ideas/concepts, these resurfacing theories are like a thin layer of dust that I’d like to wipe away once and for all, but know will always be present, even if not visible.

  I have mixed feelings about Scholes’ book.  Possibly, because of his writing style, I think.  At times, the language is quite academic-sounding to me, such as on pg. 24″……in perceiving the potent aura of codification…….,”and yet other times, his talk is straight forward, “teaching literature should be retitled studying texts.”    It doesn’t sound as intellectual but it does provide a clearer purpose.  (On a side note, my B.A. is in Family Studies, but the following year, Univ. of Maryland changed it to Family Science.  Which sounds better to you)?

In many of our readings and discussions, we’ve mentioned (if not outright) that the current system of teaching English seems “broken.” Gerald Graff discussed the problems within curriculum and Peter Elbow would like greater emphasis on the writing process.  Scholes too speaks of rebuilding and discusses his middle of the road ideas. He dismisses the revolution or abrupt change approach as well as the tinkering or reform method. This got me thinking about the D.C. school system and how past superintendants attempted to reform the broken system, but never got too far in instituting change.  Now  there’s Chancellor Rhee using a revolutionary-like style to overhaul the system. Although, it’s still early in the remaking, she doesn’t appear to be backing down from the opposition, which gives the impression that maybe this time reform will actually occur.  My guess is that a university setting would be much more resistant to the overhaul process.  So then how textual power is taught still lies with the individual teacher.  

  Both Blau and Scholes list the three skills: reading, interpretation and criticism.  Blau defines reading as what does the text say while Scholes views reading as processing text without confusion or delay.  Reading for both refers to text within text, which I understand, but I’m uncomfortable with Scholes use of ‘without confusion or delay.’ So if I  reread text to strenghten or cement my understanding at a particular point in text during the first read- through then I’ve delayed my reading process, and what? (Or am I putting too much stress on his choice of words)?

 Also, on pg. 11 he discusses his diagram regarding the English apparatus.  How does moving composition from the bottom to the othermost margin place a greater value on the subject of composition?  Which brings us back to Elbow’s argument and why reading and writing can’t get along. And yet, Scholes’ other comments, specifically that cultural knowledge should either present itself or be told, overlap previous scholars’ ideas.

As for Hemingway, perhaps he’s not a favorite among women because in the few stories that I’ve read, the women are often referred to as girls or hold an inferior position to the male character.  Also, the bull fighting theme has masculine overtones and although bull fighting is so entrenched in that culture, I personally wouldn’t mind seeing that act, of inciting a bull and then shoving swords into it till death,  banned.  I don’t understand man’s need to dominate animals. Anyway, as for the painting, I’m glad it was posted because aside from Impressionist paintings, I’m at a loss. But how does four holes and the gash in the side be deemed  “lots of holes” since that was the method Romans used.  In reading an excerpt from “Portrait of Hemingway” by Lillian Ross,  Hemingway says, ” I learned to write by looking at paintings at the Luxembourg Museum in Paris.” In this scene, he is looking at pictures by Italian painters Titian, Giorgione, Francia, plus Rubens’ “The Triumph of Christ Over Sin and Death.” I’m wondering if Hemingway’s attraction to these stems from his own fears of death and of his writing being misinterpreted. He refers to Mantega’s portrait of Christ as bitter. Is that because Hemingway feels that any attempts at goodness and righteousness will be condemned in a tortuous way like that of Jesus?  Or was Hemingway feeling embittered already? Does this even have anything to do with the criticism question? But I did use textual power….right?

Susan  

In  reviewing my previous blogs, I found three areas of repeated discussion. (As well as typos and thoughts/comments that could have been expanded on).

In three blogs I mentioned how I incorporated a method, learned from our readings, to strenghten my ability as a reader.  Even though I love reading, and consider myself an intermmediate reader, there has been many instances where I didn’t fully understand the meaning of certain passages or poems. I thought it was just me, and not something that is a common occurrence with students.  I’ve learned how I can expand my narrow, mostly literal, tunnel of thinking.  It started with accepting the difficulty and working through it instead of avoiding it.  The second step was to use annotations on the second read- through.  The third step was to make connections to either the “sketches,” other texts, or my cultural knowledge. I may have been already doing a bit of that on a superficial level, but now that I’m more aware, and therefore more focused, my reading process has been “fine tuned.”

I’ve also flipped-flopped between the roles of teacher and parent.  As a future teacher, I can envision my classroom environment as being more collaborative, and I know how I want to guide the students learning (to a degree), but as a parent I only have limited control over how my children, especially my son, is taught.  So, I put this out there, in part, because of my worry and because I thought that one teacher might have the ability/desire/courage to guide another teacher that either struggles or is uncomfortable with the labeled students. But I don’t know how realistic this possibilty is. (I did appreciate Ginny’s honesty in her one blog where she described that ADHD filled environment she taught in).

The last area covers attempts to discuss critical analysis/theory/concepts that are foreign to me.  Combined with the fact that I’m not currently teaching leaves me feeling that either my blogs are rather shallow compared to others or that I’m asking questions out loud because I don’t really have a feeling one way or the other yet. Much of our topics  has been new to me and that’s when I have to remind myself that this is the reason for my being here.      

I have received a few valuable comments that have provided professional insight or food for thought; thank you.

     Susan

I’ve often wondered why different sections of the same class would read different literary selections.  It didn’t occur to me that as an undergrad, my job was to learn HOW to interpret the text, but to learn enough about the author and the text in order to regurgitate it to future students. Sure, we discussed the text, defined unfamiliar words, and listened to what others had to say, but then waited for the teacher to tell us the point or real meaning of the assignment. (And high school was so long ago, that I just can’t recall if any English teachers felt it was their job to teach us how to better understand what we had read). In looking back, I feel cheated; and although I enjoyed most English/lit classes, I wonder how much more satisfied, and less deflated at times, I could have been.  But as the saying goes, that’s all water under the bridge.

Thanks to Blau, I’ve reached that Aha moment! I’ve always been a voracious reader but would encounter texts that I just” didn’t get.” Of course, I thought it was just me and was too shy to ask for further help, but then I wouldn’t have known what to ask anyway.  I feel so much better now. My confusion represented an advanced state of understanding!

But what to do about the teachers who are not engaging the students to become the producers, especially students that are average or in the general ed. class?  As a parent of a son labeled LD, I know he is capable of understanding this process.  He loves looking through and reading books, and still allows me to read to him.  My fear is that because he reads on a lower, slower level, a teacher may overlook his cognitive ability since he’ll always be in the inclusion or general ed. class.  Some past teachers seemed more concerned with his lack of fluency and speed and yet continued to push him onto books that were beyond his reading comfort zone.  So I felt relieved (and a bit smug) when I read that weaker readers need extended exposure to easier texts, which is what I have been doing. Another thing is that I make sure to expose him to anything and everything I can since he has this terrific memory.  There have been many, many times were he has surprised teachers with his intertextual literacy.  In these cases, I’ve looked at the teacher with wonder, but would reply with a simple,” of course.” 

But I still don’t know what to do about the differences I see in the classrooms using the same curriculum.My son’s classes tend to be of the teacher- lecture/student- highlight type.  While another class may be more hands-on or interactive, I see this more so in the GT class.  As a parent, I’m quite frustrated at times by how and what he is being taught; but as a future teacher, I relish the opportunity to employ these collaberative strategies that Blau speaks of.  I just hope I’m not creating a disillusionment for myself.

Group work has always been a mixed bag though.  Once, in American lit., we were placed in groups of three to discuss T.S.Eliot’s poem “The Waste Land.”  Well, one student hadn’t read it and the other hadn’t reached the part that we had to analyze and present informally to the class.  Our interpretation time was practically wasted with them reading it for the first time. So perhaps by instituting this concept to younger students, they’ll learn the value of the exercise itself and the importance of being prepared.

Susan

I never imagined that so much effort, time and analytical thought went into understanding the purpose of text.  In not being familiar with the academic approach, I found the two entries from John Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism rather tough to chew, swallow and absorb.  What did make sense was Richard’s experiment in giving students poems to summarize, for it is the students who are learning, not the critics, and without knowing the direction the students take, how can reading of literature be effectively taught.  Unless the author writes the true intent, interpretation would be influenced by the reader.  So in that regard, I would have to agree with Robert Crosman in that reading is translation and since translation is personal, there is no “one” or “the” meaning.  Needless to say, I did find the Crosman article an easier read. 

This doesn’t mean though that I  disagree with Hirsh. If he believes that meaning exists in printed words only, thus eliminating intention, well that could apply to some poems and literature based upon the author’s  word selection.  But then if literature is viewed as “equipment for living” than this reverts back to reader interpretation and the emotion and meaning that the words evoke.  So then Hirsh chooses verbal meaning over textual meaning? But then even printed words can have many meaning just like the word meaning has, which started off the Crosman article.  So where does this leave a teacher and (forgive me) but how important are these theories outside of a university setting?  As an undergrad, I don’t recall hearing about these assorted criticisms.  So again I would agree with Crosman that critics should lend usefulness, not authority.

Sure, some poets do use language to sway social values, explore religion, and spout politics, but then we as readers have free will. (I’m not sure about teachers.Who decides what poems/literature are taught?)  Ransom discussed “logical structure” and “local texture.”  But isn’t that subjective too?  I feel like I’m asking more questions rather than solving the truth. It’s so variable.

  On another note, I used annotation with this week’s assignment of poems.  I found it helpful in getting off the literal track I tend to stay on.  And since I had read the sketches on tone, etc., I looked for that as well, and found that I enjoyed dong these “exercises” as a reader.  Actually, as a more in-depth reader.

Susan 

I noted in last week’s blog that the required readings reminded me of flow charts.  This week’s articles give me the same feeling.  Although, I have yet to teach my own class, I attempt to apply what I’m reading/learning to my book club girls (7 sixth graders).  It’s a tight time squeeze and really I’m only introducing these concepts.  But I agree that student reading habits can change via instruction and student effort.  The process paper that Prof. Linkon described would be beneficial in strving for this change.  Unfortunately, this isn’t possible in this casual setting. 

What I believe is possible though is modifying Prof. O’Connor’s stratedgy. (She has the students design web pages).  Using poster board, the girls can  draw a “web” to link the issues. Hopefully then, they can (literally) see how the layers in the context and how the issues intersect.The book we’re reading is The Dollhouse Murders.  It is multilayered-sister with a disability, family secret regarding the murders of the grandparents, guilt over present and past tense relationships and adolescence.  Not all the girls are “getting it.” It doesn’t help that the most vocal of the group is saying this the most.

Another girl claims to have finish the book, yet couldn’t recall details from the first four chapters.  In general, it seems they are reading, but for what purpose, besides solving who dunnit, I’m not sure except to say they finshed the book.  So I reread aloud the parts that I wanted to explore in order to set the  foundation of the story.  I also suggested that they either just read what’s assigned weekly or reread the book. So I do support recursivity.  I also use it in my own reading.

(I need to digress here because of the guy next to me. I’m in the computer lab on campus and am amazed by how many students freely use their cellphones even with postings banning cellphone use decorating the room.  Not only can I hear him, but also the other person’s voice on the line! I suppose I’m showing my age here).

Okay. Another stratedgy I really like, in part because I’m an avid photographer, is Prof. Jaffe’s project.  It reminds me of I Wanna Take Me a Picture, where teaching photography to underpriviledged children worldwide provides them an opportunity to more richly explore their family/ world/culture. Then they write stories that contain details and feelings that do reflect a level of self-awareness.  And since the skills of writing and reading intertwine, this stratedgy can laterally tranfer into their reading skills.

I look forward to using these strategies more fully once I’m teaching.  In the meantime, I’ve begun to examine myself as a reader. I need to expand from being a literal reader to making more connections between ideas within the context and with other texts.  I also need to take the time to make those nuances and annotations.  It’s fascinating to read about these projects and methods. I only wish that I had learned them sooner.        Susan  

I’m knew to this blogging and forgot to write my name at the bottom of the piece. Susan

I introduced this concept of embracing difficulty to the seven sixth- grade girls that comprise my book club. While distributing their books, I told them to write down (either in the book since it’s theirs to keep or on paper) any words, passages, dialogue that are confusing or not understandable. (This week I’ll borrow the words “strange moment”). One girl responded that any hard part is usually skipped over, which I already knew from experience. So the first step then in teaching reading is to allow both time and opportunity to the students to explore or dissect their reading, and possibly this habit of skipping over will vanish. Unfortunately, teachers don’t necessarily have this time, especially in elementary school, where time/effort is more focused on SOL preparation. Yet this is the place where students are introduced to poetry and literature. Plus that’s only part of understanding texts; according to Salvatori and Donahue (ch.1) what previous knowledge the student can bring to his reading will not only determine whether the text is deemed easy or hard, but will affect his capability to make inferences. With such diversity in the schools this could compound things, especially when idioms are used.

Whether a student is an abstract or concrete thinker can further affect their ability to see the author’s intent. I find this is very true for me when I read poetry. I take the words for their literal meaning and fail to see the nuances. So I guess for some readings I’m still at the novice level! Which leads me to the article on experts and novices. I feel that my kids primary education is being shortchanged because they are being crammed with loads of information but on a superficial level. What good is all this info if the kids can’t process, manipulate, and apply what’s being taught? How much info becomes inert vs. simply forgotten? (Let me know if my ranting on the current system/methods gets to be a bit much…I find the public education curriculum to be “academically rigorous” and at times not developmentally appropriate).

Professor Sample posed the question of whether these articles intersect. I feel that they do. While the book focuses on understanding and resolving difficulties (or obstacles) novice students encounter, the article explains the hows and whys these difficulties occur, and clarifies the processing system between the two. Now the style in which the book was written was fairly technical, mixing in some educational terms, and focusing more on secondary and beyond students. Although I realize the information can be adapted for younger students. But the further I read, the slower I had to go. The reading became more tedious and at times seemed redundant. I would have liked to have heard more stories of their earlier teaching experiences/mistakes.

As for the sketches, they not only provided definitions but also gave insight and credibility to the difficulty papers provided in chapter 4. For example, Susan Connelly wrote that when reading prose, the author provides everything. In plot, a typical arrangement for action is used, so the reader creates expectations….just like Susan did. Unfortunately, texts aren’t always so tidy in form. Under main theme, it says to ask questions to yourself and engage in exploration, hence the need for difficulty papers or something similar. (It kind of reminds me of economics class, all those flow charts).

In reading Cathedral, I jotted comments that could be used in a Difficulty Paper. Doing so allowed me to see how many times the husband used certain words, pronouns, or expressions which helped form possible meanings. It also aided in recognizing symbols, being the concrete thinker that I am. But I close in knowing that both novices and experts can often be confused/puzzled/perplexed when it comes to figurative language.