Apropos of Gender and Performativity

As promised (threatened?), here’s the link to University of Texas junior (major: history) Ryan Haecker’s op-ed column: “Who wears the pants?”

Here are two excellent responses from bloggers TBogg and Pam Spaulding. Both are witty and informative. One of them even features a visual counter-argument to Haecker! (I’m not going to tell you which one that is.)

And, if you’re curious what the rest of the UT community thought/thinks about Mr. Haeker, scroll down to the newspaper’s forum for this column.

Enjoy!

Apropos of “Rememberance of Things Future”

Here’s a music video for a musical about a party thrown for time-travelers, filmed entirely within the virtual world of Second Life:

Massively blog’s Moo Money has this to say:

This video is apparently based on a new musical, The Time Travelers Convention. Three students hold a convention where they put flyers in classic books, hoping that one day a time traveler will come to their party. When one actually shows up, they must face what they want to change in their lives.

Read the whole post (it’s not long), and then check out the musical. Sounds like a lot of fun!

…And here’s one more amusing time-travel video. Just because I like time travel, and Terminator parodies…:

Revising the Sequence: Tuesday’s Plans

Here’s what we discussed today, setting out the top-level, and the initial micro-level changes and issues we wanted to address in this revision:

BIG ISSUES

  • The number of readings — too few?
  • The number of explorations — too many?
  • The pacing of the explorations — too bunched up?
  • The length of the explorations — should they be different lengths, or all 1-page?
  • Are the explorations sufficiently differentiated?
  • Do we need to foreground and emphasize “so what?” issues and development more strongly?
  • More of the writing work needs to be done in-class; should this be explicit in the sequence?
  • Some explorations are analytical, while others are “generative”; is the balance between these okay?
  • “Show-Don’t-Tell” is a major component of this sequence — does it need to become more explicit and get introduced earlier?

That’s a lot of big issues, and I’m excited to see how we address all of them in our revision! Here are the hot spots we identified in our initial discussion as places we wanted to revise:

HOT SPOTS

  • The order of readings — does it make sense, and is it as productive as it could be?
  • Exploration 4 comes out of nowhere and goes… nowhere; how do we integrate it into the sequence in an organic, productive way?
  • Possible reading additions to the sequence: “Dr. Ecstasy,” “Rememberance of Things Future,” and “Almost Before We Spoke We Swore”?
  • Does it make pedagogical and cognitive sense to switch the order of explorations 2 andf 3?
  • Exploration 1 raises important issues, but most students were unable to (or unaware that they should) engage with the serious complexities of the usage of “inquiry” and “argument” by both Green and Folger. RE-WRITE Exploration 1 so that it encourages (forces?) students to do this important work
  • Exploration 4 — does it really emphasize the need for a “so what?” enough?
  • Exploration 9 — does it really emphaszie the need for an argument enough?

So, for Thursday:

  • Read: “Dr. Ecstasy,” “Rememberance of Things Future,” and “Almost Before We Spoke We Swore”
  • Re-write Exploration 1 as you see fit and bring 7 copies with you to class
  • Go through the sequence from Exploration 1 to Essay 2 and mark up places you want to change, including as much of the text of those revisions as you can

Revising the Assignment Sequence

I’m going to use this space as a virtual discussion board for our collaborative revision of the assignment sequence.

After each class period’s discussion, I’ll post the main points here. Feel free to post your thoughts (as they develop) on the sequence here in the comments. Also, feel free to use this as a way to remind yourself what we discussed, and where the changes seem to be heading. This will be especially handy as you continue to ponder your own desired changes and tweaks to the sequence.

Thurs Oct. 18th Reading

The reading for Thursday, October 18th will be Anne Francis Wysocki’s “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty,” in Writing New Media. I’ll add this to the course calendar page shortly.

Be sure you read the sample assignments after the essay, too.

Liveblogging the Meeting with Pat Mardeusz

We start with the guide (handout and here) .

There’s an English 1 resource page! It’s here. There’s also a resource page for grad students in English here.

Pat’s mentioning major web sites for folks like us:

Pat’s note about searching books is a good one — check the library catalog, but for more up-to-date research, always check the journals. Searching for books — you have to be clever (more so than when searching for journal articles). Pat gives us some good subject headings to browse through. (I also search for books I know are on my topic, then click on the subject headings that book has.)

Doing a search for subject headings can also give you a nice list of related subject headings…

In Subject Heading land, remember “Higher” = higher education = College/University level.

When you pull up a long list of books on the library web page, you can re-sort the list by publication date. Pretty cool….

(Note: liveblogging sucks. It’s too hard to type and listen at the same time. Grrr…)

Moving on to keyword searching… you’ll get more results, but they’ll be less focused. But often, the shotgun approach is better than a sniper rifle. Search terms: “and” is not implied in searches, so make sure you put it in when you want 2 or more terms. Also, “or” is not assumed, either. So, if you want students AND motivation you need to type all 3 words. If you want students OR learners, you need all 3 words, too.

Truncation: it’s exciting. Seriously. On the UVM Library site, the truncation key is ? (question mark). On the MLA and Eric sites, it’s * (asterisk). So, if you’re searching for engagement or engaged or engaging, you can do all 3 searches with “engag?” on the library web site, or “engag*” in MLA and Eric. Snazzy.

Dan asks about the “bookbag.” Pat: “Don’t bother.” Instead, mark them and then e-mail them to yourself. And mark and e-mail ON EACH PAGE OF RESULTS. Don’t go to the next page because you’ll probably lose the last page’s records!

The “HISTORY” button at the top of the library search page is your best friend. It will let you go back to your previous searches.

Dan asks another great question about getting really subtle with AND and OR searches. It doesn’t make much sense to do this with the library catalog because the granularity of the library catalog isn’t fine enough. HOWEVER, it does make sense to do this with the MLA and Eric databases. They have enough keywords to allow you to do a really focused search.

Pat’s synonyms are great ideas. Searching is as much an art as it is a science. ALWAYS search 3 different ways using synonyms. You’ll be impressed with your results.

On to the journal databases. MLA:English::ERIC:Education. (That’s an analogy in symbolic form, think back to your SATs.) ERIC documents might be useful, might not. For this assignment, probably not. However, for your pedagogic research, it’s a nice resource to be aware of.

MLA goes back to 1926, and ERIC goes back to 1966. (I did not know that.)

Pat’s suggestions on how to limit your searches is right on. However, it can be useful to search through dissertation abstracts to see what people are dissertating on. Just a note…

Searching through individual journals is speedy, but sometimes you want the full view of what’s out there. (Just another note…)

Anyway, SEARCH FOR FULL TEXT is your bestest BFF ever. Seriously. The ability to pull up the full text and print it out is a godsend. And to do any of this, you need to log in to the library system. From the library home page, click on CONNECT FROM OFF CAMPUS. Then use EZ-Proxy to log in (same info as your e-mail info). If you’re using VPN Client with the university’s wireless, you don’t need to do the CONNECT FROM OFF CAMPUS thing. This is monumentally easier than things used to be when I was in your position. Harumph!

Pat’s commenting now on how the journal article titles are more involved and detailed than you see with the library book database. This is why it sometimes makes sense to get really subtle with your ANDs and ORs in your search.

If, however, you’re really stuck because you’re not getting the results you want with MLA, check ERIC. And just remember, the more restricted your search is, the fewer results you’ll get. That may sound really obvious, but it has implications. If you don’t have the time and/or energy to slog through 600 results, restrict! If you’re willing, though, you may get some good results in that quagmire. It’s up to you.

ERIC gives you a whole lot of search term boxes. You MUST MUST MUST make sure that the terms in each of your horizontal rows of boxes ARE SYNONYMS. The horziontal boxes are all separated by ORs, which means that if you have two or three different ideas to express, like “rhetoric” and “writing” and “identity”, putting any of two (or all three) of these on the SAME row will screw you up majorly. You want rhetoric AND writing AND identity, which means you have to either put them in the same box with ANDs between them, or put them on different rows with AND between them.

Pat is awesome. Don’t forget that she’s willing to help you guys one-on-one with this or other research topics. As you get more experience with grad-level research, it will become easier. But until that point, talk to your faculty (i.e., me) or research librarians like Pat. This is a set of skills you’ll need. They’re not obvious, and they’re not really like anything you did as an undergrad.

Thanks, Pat!

For Thursday: Digital Delirium

Alright! Now we get to play with some of the concepts and works that I really enjoy!

For Thursday, take a look at these:

Concept-Mapping Tools

Flash Poetry by Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries (turn on your speakers)

Digital Scholarship

Hyperfiction

Interactive Fiction

Finally, I’m teaching an udnergraduate course this semester on Composing Digital Narratives. There are resources on the blog for that course that may be of interest (as may the course blog itself).

Resources

For Tuesday, October 2nd

As we discussed in class, here are the big announcements for Tuesday’s class (and beyond):

  1. Your Greatest Fear/Worry/Problem/Anxiety about teaching English 001 is due on Tuesday. This doesn’t have to be a lengthy write-up, it only needs to be as long as it takes you to fully explain your topic.
  2. For Tuesday, read Anne Francis Wysocki’s “Opening New Media to Writing: Openings and Justifications” in Writing New Media pages 1-41. Pay particular attention to the lesson plans at the end of the article, and how they either do or do not help you (and students) to understand the concepts Wysocki discusses.
  3. For all future Writing Workshops, a new directive: focus on the student papers. Dan and Daniel have shown us some excellent ways we might help a class to re-engage with the source material, but for the last four workshops, I want you to take these papers at face value and help us all to see how to revise them. That doesn’t mean you can’t refer back to Warhol’s essay, but it shouldn’t be the centerpiece of your workshop.

Have a great weekend!

For Tuesday, September 11th

We’re continuing with our exploration of composition pedagogy & theory with the following readings:

  • Ann E. Berthoff: “Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Meaning, and Higher Order Reasoning” CTiCT 387-412
  • Wayne C. Booth: “The Rhetorical Stance” TC 136-144
  • Peter Elbow: “Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience” TC 145-164

Also, be sure to check out the South End Art Hop Friday evening and all day Saturday. If you’re new to the Burlington area, you owe it to yourself to check it out. It’s a lot of fun. And artsy!

For Tuesday, September 4th

As I briefly mentioned at the end of class today, here’s the assignment for Tuesday:

  • Photocopy and bring in one Exploration that you have commented on; make sure you remove the student’s name from the paper
  • Read: Linda Flower & John R. Hayes’ “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” CTiCT 273-298
  • Read: Patricia Bizzell’s “‘Contact Zones’ and English Studies” CTiCT 479-486
  • Re-read: David Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University” CTiCT 623-654 or TC 39-67

I know you’ve read the Bartholomae for the summer workshop, so you may be able to just skim it this time. The goal is to be able to put him into conversation with Bizzell and Flower & Hayes.

Also, you should have started keeping your teaching journal by now.

Have a great long weekend, and I’ll see you all on Tuesday!