My first definition of composition was a little too stupid for me to feel comfortable sharing with other people without fear of being thought a complete idiot. Hopefully my second attempt won’t be so sad, although I feel I can hardly do the term justice in 600 words as we’ve spent an entire semester trying to accomplish the task. Nevertheless, here I go.
On the last day of class I wrote: “composition is a way to create, define, and argue one’s opinions and ideas of and to the world.” However, I’ve decided now, after taking 3360, after discussing and perusing the idea of composition from all sorts of angles, that this definition also falls short. Composition means something more personal to me, something that I struggle for words to explain. To compose is to attempt to sway another individual, or perhaps the rest of the world, to your point of view. It is to define yourself, to stake a claim, to question, agree, refute, describe, and craft. Essentially, I suppose I feel that composition, any composition, is rhetoric, an attempt by an individual to make his or her mark and change something about the world, whether that thing be something as grand as moving a country to fight a war, or as small as reaching out and sharing emotions with a friend.
I arrive at this conclusion by combining the thoughts of many higher authorities on the subject than myself. I will collect a few of these ideas here in this blog so that perhaps my meaning may be better understood.
My absolute favorite scholarly definition of rhetoric is that given by Plato: Rhetoric is the “art of enchanting the soul.” Many ancient Greek philosophers pondered discourse. Aristotle described rhetoric as “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion,” and went on to identify three types of rhetorical proofs: logos, (the use of reasoning) ethos, (character and credibility of the speaker) and pathos (emotional appeals). All rhetoric, and therefore all composition, utilizes one or more of these proofs to gain credibility or power.
Toulmin’s argument structure shows us exactly how to break down an argument, and basically how persuasive language works. In sophisticated arguments, we make claims and provide data which implies some sort of warrant based in logos, ethos, or pathos. Using his structure, we can break down the language of Swift’s A Modest Proposal. We should eat babies, proposes Swift, because they taste good. He gives his audience data: one of his friends ate a baby and confirmed that it did indeed taste good. This implies that people will always eat things that taste good, regardless of any other moral beliefs they might hold in regards to the substance of their lunch.
In Seeing Voices Sacks presents us with the case of Joseph, a boy born deaf with no language. The article seemed to highlight the power of language and its importance in how we as human beings separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. From language comes developed abstract thought and empathy.
In Mile’s Born Cannibal it is suggested that human beings, in spite of our “unexamined consensus in popular biology that our species managed to out-evolve the four billion-year pattern of the rest of nature,” are still cannibalistic beings. The only reason, proposed by Garrison, that we do not eat one another under normal circumstances is because through language, and ultimately through composition, we gain morality. Abstract language is what makes us “human.” It becomes unsettling for us to eat another thinking, feeling creature like ourselves.
The value of teaching composition, then, would seem obvious, for only through composition may an individual be so empowered and civilized. Without knowing how to effectively express him or herself, a person is at an incredible disadvantage. Without understanding the power of words, a student may frequently say things which they did not truly intend to say, or seem to promote ideas that he or she had not though deeply about. This was made most evident to me through the article presented to the class by Kelly, “I Thought Composition was about Commas and Quotes, Not Queers.” It illustrated perfectly the necessity of encouraging students to analyze more critically their choice of words. It is crucial that educators in the field of composition pass on what they know so that future generations can continue to grow and develop as human beings.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
#10 Synthesis
I honestly enjoyed this class.
Every Tuesday and Thursday on my drive home from campus I would turn off my radio and just go over the ideas we discussed in my head, and maybe think about things to blog about (whether or not I actually got around to posting them on time... X_X). I think that it really says something positive about a class when a student leaves, still pondering the material covered for a long while afterward.
And it got me to turn off my radio. I'm a loud rap music and techno kind of girl. I get my kicks vibrating other people's car windows with my factory speakers and screaming about how stud, studdin' is a habit...pimp like me....Nothing will get your day going better than yelling about how bitchin' and rich you are...and how haters just don't know a thang.
Anyway...I think that one of the most important things I'll take from this class is basically a different attitude about approaching the idea of teaching, the job, the expectations. It seems much more like I have a hand in matters of the profession. It certainly made me consider shaking up traditional assignments.
I'd like to incorporate technology into my classroom, but after doing the MOO, I don't believe that that's what I would use, if for no other reason that, in a secondary class, there wouldn't be much of a practical point. What are the chances that you'll actually need to use computers to connect? You'll be in the same room.
I do think I might do blogs (or journals, if you don't have access to a computer). They give you a chance to flesh out your ideas more, and they allow shyer students to express themselves.
Every Tuesday and Thursday on my drive home from campus I would turn off my radio and just go over the ideas we discussed in my head, and maybe think about things to blog about (whether or not I actually got around to posting them on time... X_X). I think that it really says something positive about a class when a student leaves, still pondering the material covered for a long while afterward.
And it got me to turn off my radio. I'm a loud rap music and techno kind of girl. I get my kicks vibrating other people's car windows with my factory speakers and screaming about how stud, studdin' is a habit...pimp like me....Nothing will get your day going better than yelling about how bitchin' and rich you are...and how haters just don't know a thang.
Anyway...I think that one of the most important things I'll take from this class is basically a different attitude about approaching the idea of teaching, the job, the expectations. It seems much more like I have a hand in matters of the profession. It certainly made me consider shaking up traditional assignments.
I'd like to incorporate technology into my classroom, but after doing the MOO, I don't believe that that's what I would use, if for no other reason that, in a secondary class, there wouldn't be much of a practical point. What are the chances that you'll actually need to use computers to connect? You'll be in the same room.
I do think I might do blogs (or journals, if you don't have access to a computer). They give you a chance to flesh out your ideas more, and they allow shyer students to express themselves.
#9 Final Essay Ideas
Alrighty, so here's what I have so far as an idea for my final essay. Sometimes I'm just bad at coming up with topics...so feel free to rip this apart...or suggest something better.
In another class we're basically covering adolescent psychology. One of the theories that we discussed recently was Erikson's "eight psychosocial crises". Basically it's a stage theory which states that, at eight different points in your life, you will be concerned with eight different crises. As an infant, it's whether to trust or mistrust the world. Later, inferiority versus industriousness. As an adolescent, you are concerned mainly with your identity. Will it be well formed? Will you have a good sense of who you are? Will you be confused? What will be important to you and how much will certain things be a part of "you."
I'm going to combine this with the stuff we covered in class about Jim Berlin. I'll argue that, in secondary school it would be most beneficial to teach with using emphasis on a writer/subjective style in combination with rhetoric. What do you think, what do you feel, how do you interpret this, which is your favorite character, which is your favorite book. why?
Writing can be a way to develop an identity. Or! It would be very beneficial for writing and reading to become a part of their identity in one way or another.: I am a person who enjoys reading. I am a person who can write competently. et. cetra et. cetra.
I'll have to come up with some strategies to get students to actually start and get interested...maybe I'll have to chunk this idea altogether. Who knows!?
Want to see the outline I made during work? I was written up for doing it...oopsie. It almost wasn't worth it. My initial ideas are always so nebulous...it takes a lot of going in circles and running on tangents to form a coherent idea. This is my outline. Verbatim:
3360 Ideas 1 Epistemology
-style? Rhetoric? Writer/subjective
-developing identity
-way to get students interested
-Appeals to them (Pathos?)
-Jim Berlin
- "I am a person who enjoys writing."
Eventually this will all turn into something that makes sense.
In another class we're basically covering adolescent psychology. One of the theories that we discussed recently was Erikson's "eight psychosocial crises". Basically it's a stage theory which states that, at eight different points in your life, you will be concerned with eight different crises. As an infant, it's whether to trust or mistrust the world. Later, inferiority versus industriousness. As an adolescent, you are concerned mainly with your identity. Will it be well formed? Will you have a good sense of who you are? Will you be confused? What will be important to you and how much will certain things be a part of "you."
I'm going to combine this with the stuff we covered in class about Jim Berlin. I'll argue that, in secondary school it would be most beneficial to teach with using emphasis on a writer/subjective style in combination with rhetoric. What do you think, what do you feel, how do you interpret this, which is your favorite character, which is your favorite book. why?
Writing can be a way to develop an identity. Or! It would be very beneficial for writing and reading to become a part of their identity in one way or another.: I am a person who enjoys reading. I am a person who can write competently. et. cetra et. cetra.
I'll have to come up with some strategies to get students to actually start and get interested...maybe I'll have to chunk this idea altogether. Who knows!?
Want to see the outline I made during work? I was written up for doing it...oopsie. It almost wasn't worth it. My initial ideas are always so nebulous...it takes a lot of going in circles and running on tangents to form a coherent idea. This is my outline. Verbatim:
3360 Ideas 1 Epistemology
-style? Rhetoric? Writer/subjective
-developing identity
-way to get students interested
-Appeals to them (Pathos?)
-Jim Berlin
- "I am a person who enjoys writing."
Eventually this will all turn into something that makes sense.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
(8) MOOOOOOOO!
I thought the MOO was GREAT! That was probably the most entertaining thing I saw all week.
Of course...I also have the tendency to cackle maniacally when WoW has server downtime and thousands of gamers run around wreaking havoc on temp servers to sate their boredom. Maybe I just have a thing for chaos. Probably. It was most definitely liberating. I felt like the class went by super fast. I didn't experience the headache that quite a few complained of.
Of course, I've been practically living online since the age of 12, so I can understand that I'm probably not in the majority.
Oddly enough I can recall having much more organized and deep conversations with online friends in randomly thrown together chatrooms. We even did a sort of round robin story a few times. That was fun.
We wrote stories. Just because. About whatever we wanted and submitted them to eachother for comments.
Not everyone had the same level of skill, but nobody complained. Everyone contributed and had fun with it. I believe someone edited the format later on.
Our guildmaster (we all met in a game) posted the stories on our guild website along with interesting conversations...not all of which were mature and academic in nature. The longest round robin we ever produced was called Aspentopia... which was full of inside jokes and nerdtastic references...
But it was FUN. And! Of those 10 I know at least 4 plan on being English teachers.
2 are graphic artists. One joined the army. One is studying theatre/acting. And...I haven't talked to the others in about 5 years.
However, I think that THAT worked because we were all very used to sitting in front of the computer for hours and we all knew eachother really well. We were all about the same age with similar interests. We all enjoyed writing. And there weren't as many of us. Probably about 10.
Of course...I also have the tendency to cackle maniacally when WoW has server downtime and thousands of gamers run around wreaking havoc on temp servers to sate their boredom. Maybe I just have a thing for chaos. Probably. It was most definitely liberating. I felt like the class went by super fast. I didn't experience the headache that quite a few complained of.
Of course, I've been practically living online since the age of 12, so I can understand that I'm probably not in the majority.
Oddly enough I can recall having much more organized and deep conversations with online friends in randomly thrown together chatrooms. We even did a sort of round robin story a few times. That was fun.
We wrote stories. Just because. About whatever we wanted and submitted them to eachother for comments.
Not everyone had the same level of skill, but nobody complained. Everyone contributed and had fun with it. I believe someone edited the format later on.
Our guildmaster (we all met in a game) posted the stories on our guild website along with interesting conversations...not all of which were mature and academic in nature. The longest round robin we ever produced was called Aspentopia... which was full of inside jokes and nerdtastic references...
But it was FUN. And! Of those 10 I know at least 4 plan on being English teachers.
2 are graphic artists. One joined the army. One is studying theatre/acting. And...I haven't talked to the others in about 5 years.
However, I think that THAT worked because we were all very used to sitting in front of the computer for hours and we all knew eachother really well. We were all about the same age with similar interests. We all enjoyed writing. And there weren't as many of us. Probably about 10.
(7) The Internet and Composition
=( I got confused...I thought EVERYTHING concerning the blogs were due on Monday now... oh well. Here it is anyway!
Let's see...what do I think about the potential of the internet and technology in terms of revitalizing composition? (I tried writing a poem but it was terrible)
I love the internet. I love online games and text messaging and AIM and e-mail and facebook. I would like to believe that it's going to do something major for education in composition. However, in all of my online experience, I'm going to have to say that from a English teacher's presecriptive grammer point of view I've seen nothing to brag about. For the most part, people seem to completely forget anything they knew about grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc. as soon as they log on. Economy is valued. Chat rooms...nothing intelligent goes on in chat rooms.
In online games misspelling things is pretty much the cool thing to do. I had a friend once whose screen name was Muro. It was frequently typo'ed as Murp. So he became Murp. Murpy. Murple. Nurp. etc.
Thanks to the internet, I have learned such eloquent phrases as: Stop pwning my doodz noobtard!!!!1111oneoneone ur mom is ftl
I don't think online classes (especially online composition classes) are very helpful or conducive to any real learning. I've taken a few, and because I'm fairly technologically literate, (at least moreso than my professors) I wizzed through them without ever actually reading any material or considering any of the assignments in depth. It was easier, and I was working 40 hours a week.
Which brings up another issue. I think that, as education moves online, people expect things to be done faster. People expect that more of the work will be done 'on your own time.' And because of this, everyone fills up more of their 'work' time...leaving a lot less time to consider any educational material...if that makes any sense at all. I'm feeling a little dazed.
From a more scientific, linguistic standpoint, on the other hand, the internet has some fascinating stuff to offer!
Let's see...what do I think about the potential of the internet and technology in terms of revitalizing composition? (I tried writing a poem but it was terrible)
I love the internet. I love online games and text messaging and AIM and e-mail and facebook. I would like to believe that it's going to do something major for education in composition. However, in all of my online experience, I'm going to have to say that from a English teacher's presecriptive grammer point of view I've seen nothing to brag about. For the most part, people seem to completely forget anything they knew about grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc. as soon as they log on. Economy is valued. Chat rooms...nothing intelligent goes on in chat rooms.
In online games misspelling things is pretty much the cool thing to do. I had a friend once whose screen name was Muro. It was frequently typo'ed as Murp. So he became Murp. Murpy. Murple. Nurp. etc.
Thanks to the internet, I have learned such eloquent phrases as: Stop pwning my doodz noobtard!!!!1111oneoneone ur mom is ftl
I don't think online classes (especially online composition classes) are very helpful or conducive to any real learning. I've taken a few, and because I'm fairly technologically literate, (at least moreso than my professors) I wizzed through them without ever actually reading any material or considering any of the assignments in depth. It was easier, and I was working 40 hours a week.
Which brings up another issue. I think that, as education moves online, people expect things to be done faster. People expect that more of the work will be done 'on your own time.' And because of this, everyone fills up more of their 'work' time...leaving a lot less time to consider any educational material...if that makes any sense at all. I'm feeling a little dazed.
From a more scientific, linguistic standpoint, on the other hand, the internet has some fascinating stuff to offer!
(6) Berlin
First, I'd like to say that I skimmed the reading (because the instructions were to skim) and if we hadn't gone over it in class I would have no idea what I'm talking about.
When we broke into groups today in class my group talked about the fact that, although rhetoric seems to be the most appealing way to discuss, create, and teach composition, the other theories are very necessary. They're almost like stepping stones. Albiet stepping stones that you'll still need in the future over and over again.
Rhetoric wouldn't be very effective if no one understood basic rules of composition...In fact, I actually think rhetoric works better and better the more that everyone is on the same page with a good, solid basis of knowledge about how writing in English should be structured. This isn't to say that norms shouldn't be broken, but rather that no one will know that they're being broken (intentionally or not) if they're not familiar with them.
My favorite though, I guess, was the subjective. And that's probably just because that's the way I enjoy writing. It personalizes it more...makes it more interesting.
And I think that this style of teaching is probably going to be pretty important for me in the future, as I plan on teaching at the secondary level. In theory, my students should at leask know the basic objective style. Hopefully, allowing the addition of personality and opinion and such will increase their willingness to participate.
When we broke into groups today in class my group talked about the fact that, although rhetoric seems to be the most appealing way to discuss, create, and teach composition, the other theories are very necessary. They're almost like stepping stones. Albiet stepping stones that you'll still need in the future over and over again.
Rhetoric wouldn't be very effective if no one understood basic rules of composition...In fact, I actually think rhetoric works better and better the more that everyone is on the same page with a good, solid basis of knowledge about how writing in English should be structured. This isn't to say that norms shouldn't be broken, but rather that no one will know that they're being broken (intentionally or not) if they're not familiar with them.
My favorite though, I guess, was the subjective. And that's probably just because that's the way I enjoy writing. It personalizes it more...makes it more interesting.
And I think that this style of teaching is probably going to be pretty important for me in the future, as I plan on teaching at the secondary level. In theory, my students should at leask know the basic objective style. Hopefully, allowing the addition of personality and opinion and such will increase their willingness to participate.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Humanism
This lecture brought to mind Pangloss from Candide. (It took me like...forever to remember what the title of the story was).
Pangloss teaches the philosophy of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-boobology. He continues to argue, no matter what happens to him, and quite a lot of bad stuff happens to him, (contracting STDs, being beaten in front of a crowd, etc etc) that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Everything bad that happens, happens for what will ultimately be a greater good.
"'It has been proven,' he used to say, 'that things cannot be other than what they are, for since everything is made for an end, everything is necessarily for the best end. Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs are patently devised to be breeched, and so we have breeches.'"
Pangloss is certainly not a humanist. I say this because according to the little tree model from my notes in class, humanist falls under the 'no' answer to the question of 'is this the best of all possible worlds' while Pangloss obviously falls under the 'yes' column.
I'll be honest and say that I've never encountered the term before Tuesday.
So, what is a humanist? According to dictionary.com it is a person having strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. That seems to mesh pretty well with what we were going for in class.
Although, I think we were all leaning toward the idea that being a humanist requires that one care about people as individuals, be anti-killing folk, pro end world hunger.
I am about to stop making sense if I haven't done that already.
It seems to me that humanism isn't necessarily all about caring about helping the people around you live happier lives. I mean, it is if you think that that's what is best for humanity. Maybe I'm stretching it or maybe I'm confused, but I think that you might even be able to call Pangloss a humanist.
It's kind of like talking about good and evil.
Can a person be concidered a humanist if they are more concerned with humanity as a whole than humans as individuals?
If you ignore a few people's wants to promote more general happiness, are you humanist?
I think I need to read up on humanism some more.
Pangloss teaches the philosophy of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-boobology. He continues to argue, no matter what happens to him, and quite a lot of bad stuff happens to him, (contracting STDs, being beaten in front of a crowd, etc etc) that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Everything bad that happens, happens for what will ultimately be a greater good.
"'It has been proven,' he used to say, 'that things cannot be other than what they are, for since everything is made for an end, everything is necessarily for the best end. Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs are patently devised to be breeched, and so we have breeches.'"
Pangloss is certainly not a humanist. I say this because according to the little tree model from my notes in class, humanist falls under the 'no' answer to the question of 'is this the best of all possible worlds' while Pangloss obviously falls under the 'yes' column.
I'll be honest and say that I've never encountered the term before Tuesday.
So, what is a humanist? According to dictionary.com it is a person having strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. That seems to mesh pretty well with what we were going for in class.
Although, I think we were all leaning toward the idea that being a humanist requires that one care about people as individuals, be anti-killing folk, pro end world hunger.
I am about to stop making sense if I haven't done that already.
It seems to me that humanism isn't necessarily all about caring about helping the people around you live happier lives. I mean, it is if you think that that's what is best for humanity. Maybe I'm stretching it or maybe I'm confused, but I think that you might even be able to call Pangloss a humanist.
It's kind of like talking about good and evil.
Can a person be concidered a humanist if they are more concerned with humanity as a whole than humans as individuals?
If you ignore a few people's wants to promote more general happiness, are you humanist?
I think I need to read up on humanism some more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
