Invenio

I have been thinking a lot about invention since I am revising a syllabus to work in a more open way.  I have always tried to use societal and cultural things in class to spark invention through writing, but is that enough?  I personally feel that I have a place and was accepted in our program because I may see things differently or in a different light.  I have never been a traditional student who excelled in my studies (I made straight A's but never really tried).  I think this may make me a better teacher because I can better relate the struggles I went through.  In the same light, I can see how i am not striving to push for invention, as much as I am striving to create a voice. I think that invention can be created through the creation of voice, but I don't really emphasize it directly.  I think that even if Winsor's article was not the best I can see the usefulness of the invention process.

On another note, I have been working on a introduction to literature/fiction syllabus that I think I though would be easier to create in the beginning.  I have been trying to cram some of my own interests into the syllabus as an effort to create a bridge to the student in finding lit in graphic novels.  I wonder if I'm placating to my own sensibilities by doing this or expanding what literature can be?  It's something I have been struggling to figure out...

The Mud Room

So, first of all I have to say that getting back on a mud for the first time in years was an exhilarating experience.  I  just to use muds for text based computer gaming back in the day *cough*star wars RPGs.  Although this time I wasn't battling with any sand people or inspecting treasure chest it was still nice to get back on one of those things for the first time since sixth grade or so.
I digress.
The mud was an interesting experience for class today, and I think that we all utilized it differently.  Some had random outburst after being taken over by what I can only describe as pure giddiness from holding class online.  Others struggled to get in the discussions and I think the mud slid right over them burying them somewhere underneath lost trains of thought and the pace of the mud.  I was rather comfortable with the space and didn't feel that I was being overwhelmed by it, granted I have had previous usage.  I did notice that even those who expressed problems at the beginning ended up catching up and being more active nearer to the end.
The big question is-what was gathered from today's mud trial?  I don't think that this space was effective for us all.  I think some of us were more inclined to take it more serious than others, but i think that would change if the entirety of the class was held on a space like that b/c it would be only the ones wanting to get something from it.  I think those who felt more intimidated by the expeirince would probably not sign up for this type of class and even if they did their comp literacy would catch up in the environment as the semester went on.  I think there were good and bad moments within the chaos that was class today.  This space is also hard when trying to host twenty people rather than just six or so... it does create some chaos.

Berlin

This was an interesting read, in that I have been looking back at my education (undergrad v grad) classes and trying to figure out what exactly the teachers ideal approach to the class.  In trying to figure this out I was also trying to figure out which worked best for me as a student.  I found that since I come from a creative writing background as undergrad and am now doing literature in grad school I have seen most of these approaches used within TTU.

I think that as the literature courses got older (in that the one that dealt with old English, middle English,etc.) seemed to align more with the cognitive psychology rhetoric.  They seemed to be more of a survey class that showed the text and expert discussion of the text, then would build the class around these types of discussions.

My creative writing classes I guess were striving to be a social epistemic rhetorical appraoch, and despite the recent discussions in class, as an undergrad fiction CW I felt that the students that were giving me feedback were opinions that I respected and took to heart.  I may have just been in a weird group or maybe Dr. Jones facilitated it in a unique way, I'm not sure but it seemed to be less of search the Platonist truth that only the prof has.

The expressionistic coincides with my high school education, somewhat.  I feel that the power of the creative process and art was part of the AP curriculum, but at the same time it was so intermixed with formalist constructions that I have a hard time trying to label it as such.

All of this to say that I have definitely experienced a couple of these educational modes, and I really have to think that each still has its place.  I feel that certain literature benefits from a formalist/cognitive approach to be able to relate it to student ( I would still use social/cultural things as well) depending on the subject matter.  I also feel the CW classes should strive to be something that should resemble social epistemic (if the teacher can back out of the conversation).  In a straight literature course I could see using all three together to better relate literature (peer response, workshop, critical articles, open ended paper topics to emphasize student discovery...).

Sans Walls

In my last two posts I have been harking on my belief in the cultural impact of literature as something I hold in high esteem, then came Bruffee.  I had no idea that what I had thought up was so close to his theory of classes without walls.  He concentrates on the ability to bring in mew voices into the classroom through tutors, studies of culture, and society.  In this way the classroom walls are dissolved through the tutors and voices.  This is an interesting concept, but still not exactly what I was meaning by emphasizing the cultural/social/historical in literature.
I was thinking that this approach would allow for literature to achieve a broader reach and show its impact in a global sense.  The reason behind my doing this was to make it more relate-able to the students.  Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll is an approach I like to take while referencing culture, society, and history to situate the literature while at the same time showing its context to better illuminate its content.  Bruffee was an interesting read because it showed me a new side of the idea that would allow me to better defend my approach to teaching literature.  Bringing in history, science, sociology, and other disciplines I am not only making it more relate-able but now I am breaking down the walls of the classroom (partially) as the scholar Bruffee suggest with the "conversation of mankind".  I feel smarter already.
Another reason that I felt myself aligning with was putting audience in the forefront, because it is true-you can't write for an audience if you don't know the audience.  Bringing in other elements which allow different scope with which the students to look at the literature will also allow them to situate it within the time that it was written, thus better knowing the audience for which it was originally written.  Even if the audience cannot be without question pointed to, it still starts a conversation within the students minds.  If these types of sparks can be ignited, then when talking through the required paper it is easier as an instructor to make a link between the importance of audience in their own writing since they have seen the importance of audience in what they have read for the class.  This may just be because of my minor in history or the fact that I started grad school doing both English and History, but when teachers were able to connect these dots it always made the discussion more interesting to me when I was/am in class.

I Believe

This week I tried to get down the three things that I believe in as a teacher to include into my teaching philosophy.  I have written a teaching philosophy before, but because it was for my Internship it was focused primarily on teaching film.  The three things I believe can still fit into my old teaching philosophy with very little change.

I believe the power of language can be emphasized by focusing on clarity, brevity, and sincerity in student's writing;
I believe that good literature and writing has a social and cultural component and through the exploration of these ideas through classroom discussion can make literature from all regions and eras more relate-able to the students;
I believe the the class should be flexible and broad with goals and procedures to allow students to shape discussion and feel more invested in the discussions in class, and also a broadened focus allows literature to be attacked from multiple angles.

These are my three things (as of right now) and I think that they would work for composition, literature, or film teaching philosophy.  These goals not only state my own position as a teacher but also how I align with different categories of approach.  There are some definite social epistemic and mimetic things going on within these three things as well.

Tell me what you think, did I miss some major points/are there holes/etc.