Class Presentation

What have I learned about this class? What do I have to say about what I've learned?

1. Wht does Ecofeminism/Ecocriticism have to do with this class?
   I wanted to explore what teaching feminism/ecology/ecocriticism in a composition classroom would entail and why one would need to teach it?
   Pertinent Questions:What are the politics and policies that kept/keep women and minorities suppressed and how does that relate to how the environment is often subjugated?
   I see things like women's suffrage and and Civil Rights to be similar to the avenue taken to form the EPA. What are the politics of something intended to be liberatory and how does that relate to literacy? What are those politics? And what the dynamic before and after the change occurred?
   Too bad the environment is an inanimate object; otherwise, more legislation would be in effect to liberate something that is so oppressed.
   THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE ABLE TO READ
   GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE AND THE ENVIROMNET. (SEE BELOW)
2. Pop Culture/Film/Advertising: What does that have to do with the class?

I wanted to identify what rhetoric is and how it is defined now.

I think that Aristotle would see Rhetoric completely different if he were alive today.

I see TV/Film/Music/Advertising as definitive forms of contemporary rhetoric.

I say this due to the dynamic in which they operate (orator/audience/message form is

predominantly seen in advertising) as opposed to the rhetoric seen in something composed on

paper.

Film/Television also have product placement.

To tie it with the above, most people are subject to this rhetoric of consumerism which has

often been at the expense and exploitation of the Environment.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Finally, I wish to tie both of the above issues together with Eco composition.

Exploring practical ways to green the process of literacy. Is literacy going green?

Things like socioeconomic play a role in almost anything and definitely the politics of greening literacy

What are the pros and cons that teachers face when attempting to incorporate sustainable pedagogies?

What is the inherent rhetoric in going “green?”

Whose interest is really at hand?

What would one, ideally, wish to achieve from a no-impact sustainable English Department?

Would this improve learning?

Books:

Owens, Derek. Composition and Sustainability: Teaching For a Threatened Generation. NCTE, 2001. Print

Weisser, Christian J., Sidney J, Dobrin (eds): Ecocomposition: Theoretical and Pedagogical Approaches. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 2001. Print.

Duffy, John, Martin Nystrand. Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research On Writing, Text, and Discourse. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Print.

Week 12 Response: Short And Not So Sweet

 

     I know it was just an opinion piece on Canagarajah, but I thought the authors should have explained their intentions with translingualism more thoroughly. The opinion article also seemed to be independent and that is another reason it should have explained itself better. The paper seemed to spend the first half of the article explaining why a translingual approach can be beneficial and the last part giving poor (and biased) examples that did not clarify anything. I'm still confused as to how a translingual approach to English should be implemented and what it would actually look like. They (pro-translingualists) had a lot of theory behind this and not much substance. Maybe my expectations for this type of approach are just too high? I was really thinking that all of these people who authored this paper would have more to say: Let the reader know how assignments will work and what topics will be covered and what exactly a translingual writing assignment will focus on. The paper suffices as a “mission statement” of sorts, but such academic theories and teaching styles need to be better explained if they want more people to buy into them.

"Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach:" Executive Summary

 

     This article introduces the reader to some of the issues and approaches dealt with in Canagarajah'a article in regards to trying to incorporate diverse linguistic flavors into an English-oriented curriculum. Some intial points made by the opinion article  are that even a mono linguistic, English speaker can technically be multilingual and the NCTE and CCCC encourage this type of idology. Early on, also, it is indicated that a monolingualist can achieve a certain level of "translingualism."  This is due, in part, to the many dialects and spheres in which “standard” English operates. There is also a distinction made between what “standard” English is and what “edited American English” is. The latter would be something done in an academic setting, such as an essay. Three objectives are outlined in is article as to what translingualism, in a classroom, would appreciate: (1) honoring the power of all language users to shape language to specific ends; (2) recognizing the linguistic heterogeneity of all users of language both within the United States and globally; and (3) directly confronting English monolingualist expectations by researching and teaching how writers can work with and against, not simply within, those expectations.

   The authors explain that they wish to only understand language better and not necessarily just English. They see this initiative as exploring the hows, whys and whats of language. The authors of this move in teaching plan for this agenda to infiltrate all layers of society, from the working class person to the college student. The authors of this paper see the exploring of various linguistic styles, as implemented into the classroom, to be a form of democracy and granting civil rights to all. It is intended to take traditional views of composition and bend them enough as to where this “translingualism” will become the standard in how to deal with “English” and  other (ESL) students coming into a composition classroom.

     At the paper's conclusion, a series of questions about this type of teaching are posed by the authors and it's contributors. The questions help to explore the actual utility of translingualism and what it would look like in a classroom. Questions like “How can a a monolingual instructor teach such a class? My students are all monolingual, do they need to learn a multilingual approach to composition? Doesn't one need to master his/her native tongue before trying this type of approach?” are all asked by this paper. The responses to these qustions, although slightly indirect and posed by the researchers themselves, indicated a positive response in favor of a translingual approach to reading/writing. Go figure.

Week 10 Response: Wait a second just found this really cool link, Hey, something shiny.

     I understood the premise of all of these “activity” theories, but, as with most research like this, I think it is difficult or almost impossible to really understand the whole writing process (or the activities that inform it). I found that researching the origins of CHAT to be helpful; however, I think that CHAT has totally different possibilities in the 21^st century and that the theory will have to continually evolve to adequately research many of the questions it poses. I say this due to the growing amount of “tools” that one can access at the click of a button or touch of a screen. I understand that the basic premise is based on the outside stimuli one negotiates while composing and developing a “written” document, but that's where I see that so many other things have to be taken into consideration.

     I did find this theory to be useful as a tool to explore my own activity process. I, honestly, have more down time when it comes to my writing. Meaning that I spend more time not writing and reading than doing the former or the latter. I see writing about certain things as an enormous task that is going to take too much time and not have much pay out in the end. My papers end up being half genuine inspiration and sincerity and half filler to meet a page requirement. That is the one thing that I appreciate about journalism: Brevity. This was more of an aside, but I believe that this aspect of writing is a very large part of activity theory. It was also a sentiment shared by a couple of the people in the paper I read. Just the idea of a writing task, small or large, can make the composer feel overwhelmed. Even squeezing in this blog post can be arduous at times.

     Now, back to my 21^st century concerns. While I'm actually writing, I listen to music, break for a snack, watch a movie clip, look up something about pop culture, check my email...etc. Most of these things would not be possible 20 years ago, but they are all part of my writing process. It's hard form me to discern work/not work while doing anything. When I'm at the library or some similar “work-oriented” place, I do spend little time “wasting time,” however. It's all a matter of what is “private” and what is “work” and how the aesthetic is achieved. The work/private line is ever blurring with today's technology and I think Bazerman would agree. I think the overwhelming amount of tools one has can be counterproductive, too. For example, my computer was getting repaired a few weeks ago and I had a few days to kill with no internet access. I spent most of that time reading and working on things that I was composing. I got more work done without a computer than I did with a computer. This may not be the case for everyone, but it is for me. I find it hard to get things done when I have the internet right in front of me. On the converse of the technology issue ,however,  listening to a song or some film has ALWAYS inspired my writing. Some song that brings up an important social issue or a television show that is clever makes me think more, thus the film/music acts as a catalyst for writing and cognition. This is one reason that I have chosen pop-culture oriented rhetoric/composition as my research project.

Prior and Shipka:Chronotopic Lamination: Tracing the Contours of Literate Activity: Executive Summary

 

Okay, this was quite an interesting article...to say the least. It was a bit long and may prove to be difficult to summarize in an executive manner, but I will try.

     In this article, Prior and Shipka discuss the idea of “activity theory” and “Chronotopic Lamination” which, simply, has to do with the physical processes and social environment’s role and how they work together for a subject to produce writing. The researchers interview, interpret drawings, and analyze texts produced by a wide range of participants: Some are undergraduates studying engineering and some are doctoral students working on dissertations in Library Science and some are professors. Activity theory researchers try to understand what trajectories people are on in relation to how they write and in which context the individuals live. There are many, too, what one may call, “sub-theories” within activity theory that help expand the scope of what and how it studies information in relation to the individual and group; however, researchers have expressed concerns that activity theory heavily relies interdisciplinary discourse.

     To introduce some of the initial and fundamental concepts of activity theory, the authors describe the simple, yet complex, set of actions that take place when a psychology professional (for example) composes a paper. The professional does laundry during her writing and takes time to fold her laundry every 45 minutes and listens for the buzzer on her dryer as a cue when to take a break and reflect while she does laundry. This act, plus the fact that it is associated with women, is the other half of activity theory; this is the part that that relies on the incorporation of sociological perspectives consciously and unconsciously held by the subject. These two parts joined are what is also known as: “cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), a tale of how tools (external aids) mediate activity, altering the flow of behavior” (180) This is the basic premise for activity theory.

     The authors move on to discuss several other participants in their study. For instance, one participant that was an engineering student displayed her creativeness for a simple composition project : She was to, in 250 words, write a statement describing what her “ethics” were and how they were developed in her academic life; she was also asked to describe how she plans to employ them in her future career. This somewhat simple task was interpreted differently by the student. She created a word search puzzle with several words that indicated how she had developed ethics. This was met with resistance and she received a low score on the project. The authors of this article describe how the girl came about thinking about this type of presentation and how she developed it. A lot has to do with the context in which she already existed and what it is comprised of: Her peers, her teachers, herself. This type of context is a crucial element to activity theory and how something, as a paper or project that isn't necessarily a paper, develops and then gets constructed. What the subject wrote has a lot to with goals, unconscious goals, motives, and operations.

     There are several other concepts within activity theory, “ Sense affect and consciousness,” being the main topic that attempts to really understand the reader/writer/activity/context relationship. A lot of it deals with the actual things people do to ensure a better writing environment. Some people may light candles or turn on music and others have a completely different approach as to best suit themselves to write; These activities testify to how complex and stratified writing does become. It has roots that grow in all directions and, as the authors mentioned, becomes a sort study within a study; really understanding the the iner- workings of the human mind and how it relates to any number of outside stimuli is a phenomenon vastly misunderstood.

Week 9 Response

I will try to keep this relatively brief, since I am doing an entire presentation of the topic of activist research. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this type of methodology. I understand that people in “authoritative” positions need to engage in civic interaction with those who have not been able to achieve the level of social legitimacy of which the researcher has, but to what extent is this productive, civic engagement actually achieved?

      From what I have read, mostly Cushman, I don't know what is really occurring with this type of research. Is she really becoming friends with these people, helping them help her or is she exploiting them? I felt like activist research is based on “slumming” it for a while to get what you need to publish a book or paper; what occurred, though? One may, in fact, be reinforcing the oppressive social structure that he/she is challenging. I don't think too much exploitation is occurring , though, honestly. I say this only because all parties involved are just using each other. Cushman claims that the people she researched were aware of the dynamic and  everyone is happy and gaining a real sense of what it means to protest something oppressive by utilizing the means of which they have access.

      However, I do not see this as civic engagement that will potentially challenge a damaging hegemony: Both parties were being selfish and not really acknowledging what was really happening: Everyone is getting used. Maybe I'm being a cynic here, but I think this methodology is way too problematic to be considered as a legitimate means for social change. But, then again, hardly any form of social change is legitimate. It's all based on a power structure and a dominant class that holds the authority and dictates everything. Well, on a lighter note, the show “Welcome Back, Kotter” seemed like a legitimate form of social change. Mr. Kotter didn't come from much and went to college to become a teacher. He then came back to his roots to teach at the high school he once attended. That's change I can believe in!

Cushman: Ch. 2: Executive Summary

     In chapter two of Cushman's The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community, she introduces the reader to an exploration of what “activist methodology” or “activist research” actually entails. It does share some of its defining qualities with ethnography, but the nuances and overall objectives differ. Cushman asserts that activist research is not one -sided, as in where a group of people are being observed from a tower or behind glass, but that there is a certain level of reciprocity that occurs during the research: Both the researcher and researched are gaining some form of benefit from the research, whether it be scholarship for one or literacy for the other. Cushman explains this as she notes her experience with some of the people she was researching in a primarily African American community: For example, she was able to gain entry into a Muslim place of worship due to the report she had built with some of these people she was “getting to know.” Normally a white woman wold have not been able to participate is something such as a Muslim worship service. She, in turn, allowed them to gain access to the computer lab owned by the University she was working for. Things like this are, Cushman claims, are important to what activist research is aiming to achieve.

     She also does address some of the things that make this form of research problematic: Some people would claim that there really isn't much reciprocity occurring and that people are being exploited, but Cushman argues that the people in such studies are aware of the dynamic between themselves and the person who is “doing the work.” In other words, the “researched” do not feel that they are being exploited and understand that it is a form of sociological study. Being engaged with people in a community on a personal level like this, Cushman also states, is the only way to imbed the social change that is also part of activist research. She claims that the people participating in these studies are actually given a sense of agency through their participation.

     Cushman goes on to explain other ways in which activist research is based on give and take by both parties involved: Some participants in the research wanted to sharpen their verbal skills, pronunciation and execution of language to sound “white.” Cushman helped them to do so and learned that some people switch to a different dialect or vernacular to achieve a form of legitimacy from white people who may work at banks, housing authorities or any such place where a lack of command of the English language could possibly put them into jeopardy. This is called “code switching” by Cushman and it was a practice of which she had been unaware.

     Overall, Cushman claims that activist research, and what it may yield, can be an integral tool in challenging social heirarchies and the hegemony in which is the backbone of such a hierarchy. The ideas may be considered quixotic and fluff to some, but the challenging of these hegemonies is an admirable and noble cause, Cushman argues. She claims this due to the aforementioned premise of activist research in which the dynamic of who will benefit is equal.