Today I attended the writing workshop with Boudreau Freret who had some interesting things to say about writing in general, and writing on web 2.0 programs that are directly related to our class discussions about technology and its implementation in the classroom.
The first point he made that I want to mention is: All good writing is creative. Of course he claims he admits to having few sources to back-up his claim, but I agree with this point for some different reasons. Professors are continuously talking about providing and finding your own voice in your writing, and I think that directly relates to creativity. Anybody can make a claim, support it with evidence, and move on with their lives. But, it takes a real writer to take an academic argument and put a voice on it to make it somewhat entertaining. So, how do us writers find our voices? Well he had a suggestion. Pull up two applications. 1.Your paper that you must get done, but are having a hard time completing it. 2. A twitter link where you can post randomness that makes you laugh. Then alternate between writing between the two. His theory was great: use both sides of your brain (left is analytical right is creative) at the same time. It works for him... It might work for you. The problem that I had when we did the exercise is that I couldn't pull out my creative side because my mind was trying to wrap itself around the lawyer talk and I wasn't even sure I was reading English. However, I have been forming another idea. I started a journal (OK diary, but I can't stand that word) and inside all my complaining and randomness (twice in one blog!) I see myself, MY VOICE. Now, this is just a guess, but I think if I cut out the fluff in my journal I would have some pretty understandable, concise writing.
Which leads into Freret's second point. Good writing is concise writing. This is a point I have a hard time adjusting to. I have had three years of journalism training, where I wrote as little as possible as fast as possible. The longest paper I had to write was five pages, usually only for a final. Needless to say this transition to English and 12-15 page papers has been brutal. Freret says to write as much as possible, put down everything you can think of, then cut it down. It's a hard concept to get into. I'm still working on that.
The last and maybe the most important part of the workshop I want to mention is the use of Twitter and Facebook as educational tools. Freret refrains from the usual status updates: "Autumn Sanders went to the store for some bread." And instead uses the resources as a tool to give people (the world) interesting, creative information, sometimes just used to entertain himself. While I think these could be great tools that could bring a lot to education there are some questions we need to answer. How close should the teacher/student relationship be online? What age is too young? Do we really want to take away the student's freedom of social expression and make it into something they have to do? As technology progresses these among others are questions we must consider before jumping into these innovations.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
"Isn't collaborative learning the blind leading the blind?"
In class I discussed Richard Whately's view on truth: There is an absolute truth, but men don't have access to it. God is the only possessor of absolute Truth and men have assess to it through the gospel, which they inevitably interpret wrong. Whately believes that men (and I have to include women) will always be imperfect, but that should not stop them from seeking out the truth. Raymie McKerrow states: "Whately argues that just because men reason imperfectly, even with logic training, that is no reason to abandon the attempt to generally improve the reasoning of individuals, and more than one would abandon the study of grammar even though applied imperfectly once studied" (178). So, how does Whately apply to Kenneth Bruffee's article "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'?" Well, let me tell you.
Brufee argues that class discussion, especially in English classes, is effective in getting the students involved as well as generating new ideas, and promoting individual learning. But, he questions it's use for three reasons. One, the teacher is usually the one doing the discussing, all the while randomly calling on inattentive students to respond to a question and usually sitting in silence waiting/wishing for a student to say something (at this point anything!!). The second shortfall he mentions is the lack of actual discussing. Bruffee states that in most cases there are two arguments: a pro and a con, no real discussion of an in between, a completely different solution, or any other creative ideas.
But, the main point he focuses on, and the connection to Whately is his link to Thomas Kuhn, who focuses on knowledge. He states: "To say that knowledge is indeterminate is to say that there is no fixed and certain point of reference, no Arnoldian 'touchstone' against which we can measure truth. If there is no such absolute referent, then knowledge must be a thing people make and remake" (554-555). Though Kuhn and Whately have some major connections, they also have a difference in opinion as to how they get there. Just because Whately believes that knowledge is "indeterminate" doesn't mean that there is no fixed point. For Whately God and the gospel are the unreachable fixed points of knowledge/truth. Yet, the two scholars actually come to the same overall conclusion that knowledge is what man decides it to be.
Whately argues that man gets his truths from the bible, while Kuhn argues that collectively men come up with it on their own. In a classroom setting (and probably in any setting) it is the concept of the blind leading the blind. Richard Rorty calls it socially justifying belief. Bruffee continues: "Knowledge must be a social artifact. But to call knowledge a social artifact, Kuhn argues, is not to say that knowledge is merely relative, that knowledge is what any one of us says it is. Knowledge is maintained and established by communities of knowledgeable peers" (555). OK, so not any random person can make up their own knowledge and expect people to go along with it, it is the job of "knowledgeable people" (how they became knowledgeable in the first place is questionable) to decide what our absolute truths can be. Of course, this is a perfect seg-way to bell hooks.
"Knowledgeable people" are clearly the educated white man, or in bell hooks' terms: the white supremacy, racist, sexist, capitalist, patriarchal society. The head leaders in this society she hates so much. Well no wonder the world is dysfunctional, we are lead by a bunch of idiots who think they are smart, but who can only learn something if it's collaboratively agreeable. But, is there any other alternative? How could we possibly know, because none of us really know the true answer to anything. Even laws are just mere theories.
Brufee argues that class discussion, especially in English classes, is effective in getting the students involved as well as generating new ideas, and promoting individual learning. But, he questions it's use for three reasons. One, the teacher is usually the one doing the discussing, all the while randomly calling on inattentive students to respond to a question and usually sitting in silence waiting/wishing for a student to say something (at this point anything!!). The second shortfall he mentions is the lack of actual discussing. Bruffee states that in most cases there are two arguments: a pro and a con, no real discussion of an in between, a completely different solution, or any other creative ideas.
But, the main point he focuses on, and the connection to Whately is his link to Thomas Kuhn, who focuses on knowledge. He states: "To say that knowledge is indeterminate is to say that there is no fixed and certain point of reference, no Arnoldian 'touchstone' against which we can measure truth. If there is no such absolute referent, then knowledge must be a thing people make and remake" (554-555). Though Kuhn and Whately have some major connections, they also have a difference in opinion as to how they get there. Just because Whately believes that knowledge is "indeterminate" doesn't mean that there is no fixed point. For Whately God and the gospel are the unreachable fixed points of knowledge/truth. Yet, the two scholars actually come to the same overall conclusion that knowledge is what man decides it to be.
Whately argues that man gets his truths from the bible, while Kuhn argues that collectively men come up with it on their own. In a classroom setting (and probably in any setting) it is the concept of the blind leading the blind. Richard Rorty calls it socially justifying belief. Bruffee continues: "Knowledge must be a social artifact. But to call knowledge a social artifact, Kuhn argues, is not to say that knowledge is merely relative, that knowledge is what any one of us says it is. Knowledge is maintained and established by communities of knowledgeable peers" (555). OK, so not any random person can make up their own knowledge and expect people to go along with it, it is the job of "knowledgeable people" (how they became knowledgeable in the first place is questionable) to decide what our absolute truths can be. Of course, this is a perfect seg-way to bell hooks.
"Knowledgeable people" are clearly the educated white man, or in bell hooks' terms: the white supremacy, racist, sexist, capitalist, patriarchal society. The head leaders in this society she hates so much. Well no wonder the world is dysfunctional, we are lead by a bunch of idiots who think they are smart, but who can only learn something if it's collaboratively agreeable. But, is there any other alternative? How could we possibly know, because none of us really know the true answer to anything. Even laws are just mere theories.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Mary Astell: The Good and the Bad
Mary Astell's devotion to her gender is extraordinary; it is what starts revolutions. It's too bad the people of her time weren't ready for all she had to offer.
"This work (later known as A Serious Proposal, Part I), is in fact a plea to women to take seriously the life of the mind, and to make it possible for girls to be taught to use their intellectual talents" (147). She knew that women were capable of being more than just the silent companions of men. She was educated and had the crazy notion that all women should be educated as well. She is the epitome of what we would call an independent woman. Not married, supporting herself the best way she could, today this is the norm, back then that was not the role of a women. She "reproaches women for wasting their talents in lives of trivial self-indulgence" (148).
The problem, I think, is with her approach. She was mad at her sex. I think we can relate: Women are still looking for a man, if not to support them, then to complete them. The idea that a women needs a man in her life has not died out by any means. But, not only is she scolding women to step up and take control of their lives, but she is rejecting the way society worked, seemingly alone. The reading argues that she focused on her audience, and placed themselves in her shoes. "Astell puts herself in the place of her audience of women and takes into account not only the many deficiencies of their education but also its single strength: whatever the failures and omissions in women's education, it always included a thorough grounding in Christian morals" (153). In this respect, she succeeds. Including religion in her argument allows her to connect with her audience in a way they will understand. But, to a point she is insulting them. For example: "Mary Astell was incensed: 'Why won't you begin to think, and no longer dream away your lives in a wretched incogitancy? Can you be in love with servitude and folly? Can you dote on a mean, ignorant and ignoble life?'" (149) Instead of yelling at women to do something with their lives, she should have worked with them and society to promote change.
I admire her passion and dedication to the betterment of her gender, but think her approach could have been better in that she shouldn't degrade women for following their role in society, but encourage them to do better. After all, you can only lead someone to water...
"This work (later known as A Serious Proposal, Part I), is in fact a plea to women to take seriously the life of the mind, and to make it possible for girls to be taught to use their intellectual talents" (147). She knew that women were capable of being more than just the silent companions of men. She was educated and had the crazy notion that all women should be educated as well. She is the epitome of what we would call an independent woman. Not married, supporting herself the best way she could, today this is the norm, back then that was not the role of a women. She "reproaches women for wasting their talents in lives of trivial self-indulgence" (148).
The problem, I think, is with her approach. She was mad at her sex. I think we can relate: Women are still looking for a man, if not to support them, then to complete them. The idea that a women needs a man in her life has not died out by any means. But, not only is she scolding women to step up and take control of their lives, but she is rejecting the way society worked, seemingly alone. The reading argues that she focused on her audience, and placed themselves in her shoes. "Astell puts herself in the place of her audience of women and takes into account not only the many deficiencies of their education but also its single strength: whatever the failures and omissions in women's education, it always included a thorough grounding in Christian morals" (153). In this respect, she succeeds. Including religion in her argument allows her to connect with her audience in a way they will understand. But, to a point she is insulting them. For example: "Mary Astell was incensed: 'Why won't you begin to think, and no longer dream away your lives in a wretched incogitancy? Can you be in love with servitude and folly? Can you dote on a mean, ignorant and ignoble life?'" (149) Instead of yelling at women to do something with their lives, she should have worked with them and society to promote change.
I admire her passion and dedication to the betterment of her gender, but think her approach could have been better in that she shouldn't degrade women for following their role in society, but encourage them to do better. After all, you can only lead someone to water...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)