Robin

Sep 232015
 

I was a huge fan of the Sommers’ reading.  Check this out:

“The challenge we face as teachers is to develop comments which will pro-vide an inherent reason for students to revise; it is a sense of revision as discovery, as a repeated process of beginning again, as starting out new, that our students have not learned. We need to show our students how to seek, in the possibility of revision, the dissonances of discovery-to show them through our comments why new choices would positively change their texts, and thus to show them the potential for development implicit in their own writing.”

This gave me nerd chills: commenting can be helpful to students provided the comments are actually phrased in a constructive manner.

The least helpful form of commenting is when professors say vague, ambiguous negativity.  When I was in school most of my professors would say random negative things, “This doesn’t make sense,” “I don’t like this,” and “Sentence Fragment.”  Not only does this form of commenting leave the student feeling hurt, but also it gives them no idea how they can make it better.  Obviously the student would have made it better if they knew how, but with this form of commenting it’s like the teacher is standing on top of their grave and yelling at them not to be dead.

This is why I’ve tried to make my commenting in ENC1101 more suggestive based.  For example, when I start a paper off, if the student uses vague language, I’ll try to give a suggestion for how they could be more specific with their language.  “In your introductory paragraph, you need to be more specific about the word ‘problems.’  Economic?  Social?  Pyschological?  Narrow it down.”  Then later on when I say things like “vague language,” I tell the student to refer back to the example I showed them in their introductory paragraph.  Utilizing this method of constructive specificity with my commenting, I’ve had a positive reaction from students.

In my morning class, I have two students who are already doing better.  One of the students got a “D” on his first paper because he fudged his margins and used vague, generic language in order to convey the idea of saying profound things without actually saying anything at all.  In his paper I told him so with my comments.  His second essay has all of the commented areas fixed as well as improvements to other areas.  His grade for this 2nd paper is a “B.”

Comments can be helpful, but they need to be written in a way that the student can understand and make use of.  Further, commenting isn’t enough; students also need to feel like their teacher is a real person, and not just some vague authoritarian abstraction hovering over their shoulder, screaming every time they use the passive voice or make a comma splice.  Personal relationships create a sense of trust with students so that when they read teacher comments, they know and want to pay attention.  The more I do this teaching business, the more I’m realizing that it’s all about respect.

 Posted by at 6:36 pm
Sep 162015
 

I loved our reading last week on the banking theory of education.  South Korea has the ultimate CHASE bank monopoly in their form of education.  Corporal punishment was still widely practiced during my tenure at two different high schools in Daejeon.  Teachers literally beat their students with 2×4 wooden boards that had holes drilled into them.  One time I was lecturing in the middle of the day–regular, routine day, just like any other.  A male student began talking to his neighbor and sorta tickling him in his sides.  My co-teacher pulled this student out of my class without saying anything.  Ten minutes later he and the student came back in the classroom and took their seats.  My co-teacher’s face was bright red and he was breathing heavily.  The student’s face was also bright red, not breathing heavily, and he was crying.  I also noticed that the teacher had broken the 2×4 that he had used to beat this students backside.  His name was Park Tae Won and he held these broken boards in his hands with a perfectly complacent expression and listened to me finish my lecture.  Later, after class was over, he came up to me and explained that he had beaten the student “like a man” because he had been messing around in the previous class too.

The whole experience was so surreal.  I didn’t say anything in disagreement–I had to work with him on a daily basis and this wasn’t my country or culture–but my immediate reaction was to think, “how is beating a student’s backside with a board” manly?  Then I thought that if he had really wanted to “beat the student like a man” he should have given the student a board so that they were both equally armed.

It wasn’t just men that got beat there either.  Girls got beaten, though not with 2×4’s, not on their backsides, and I don’t recall ever seeing a male teacher beating a female student.  It was strictly female teachers beating female students.  The teachers used cylindrical rods about the size of a forearm in length and a finger in girth.  The girls would kneel on top of a chair with their feet tilted up toward the ceiling, and the teachers would beat the bottoms of their feet.  Or, if not their feet, the teachers would have the girls hold their hands out, palms up, and beat the interior of their hands.

Students were beaten for all manner of misbehavior, but the most common was for tardiness.  Every day I went to school, I’d walk past a line of students in the parking lot waiting to go to the gymnasium where they would be beaten and then dismissed to first period class.  It was always the same students, always the same infractions.  Other reasons beating the students included: not having the right uniform, talking, not doing homework, being disrespectful to a teacher, and getting into fights with other students.

The most unfair reason for getting a beating was not having the proper uniform.  Both of the high schools I taught at were in low-income areas of a mid-size city.  Many had single parent homes and did not have much money for food, let alone the proper uniform.  So they got beat.  As I passed these students in the mornings, eager to get there a bit early and down a cup of coffee before first period, I’d think to myself, “What sense does it make to keep beating a student when they will never have the money to buy the proper uniform?”

Tradition and conformity are strong in South Korea, sometimes for the good, sometimes not.

 Posted by at 6:47 pm
Sep 022015
 

Last class we talked extensively about the different camps of rhetcomp studies, and the two camps that interested me the most were the Fishian structuralists vs. The Sociological Historicists.  Or, to simplify these terms even more, People Who Think We  Should  Teach Only Fundamentals of English and Everyone  Else Who Thinks English Should be Taught as Part and Parcel to a Grander Sociological Examination.

The aspect of this conversation that I found most intriguing was how antagonistic the two camps felt toward one another.  Fish is especially critical of the Historicists because he seems to think that the sociological aspects of this camp are trumping their primary responsiblity of rhetcomp studies, which is to teach students how to write.  Meanwhile, the Historicists are (perhaps understandably) perturbed by Fish’s condescending, holier-than-though tone.  After all, situating English instruction within a grander sociological framework can be a useful tool for persuading the interest of students within that sociological framework.

From my point of view, neither of these two schools of thought has a corner on the market.  The helpfulness of both camps depends on both the skillset of the teacher as well as the interest level of the students.  Some teachers more versed in a grander sociological background will, no doubt, be better at tailoring their lesson plans around this skillset.  Meanwhile, teachers like myself who are weaker in Grand Historical Backgrounds and more interested/versed in the fundamentals of English, can use the Fishian approach to teaching English with greater degrees of success.

However,these are not mutually exclusive paradigms for approaching the instruction of English.  I can foresee  myself using both skillsets depending on the day.  Teachers would be wise to mix and match from all of the different schools of Rhetcomp; intellectual promiscuity is the road to a more satisfying and unifying intellectual discourse and will certainly result in the highest utilization of the broadest level of skillsets for both the teacher and the students.

 Posted by at 2:22 pm
scroll to top