Final Blog 7

 

                                                To Game or Not to Game: That is the Literacy Question

Video games itself are complex, including their presentation of stories and plot within their game dimensions. As someone from a reading and writing background, I find that video games can be seen as literary too, based on its rhetoric through their usage of language and aesthetics.  That is, the player’s interaction with the text commands onscreen provides a similar metacognitive experience as with reading a literary text. Growing up, I was surrounded by both and video games and have equally utilized both mediums for my development of literacy. Furthermore, during my undergraduate career, I learned of English professors who included video games in their required reading list. It then intrigued my curiosity and I began to wonder on the various attributes gaming may have  when introduced as a reading requirement in academia. Thus, brings me to my inquiry, which is the question on how gaming can be incorporated as literacy in a reading classroom setting. Additionally, I also want to explore on how will games be evaluated and proven as literary for academia. As gaming literacy is slowly making its way into the academic setting, I am quite interested in the developing conversation. As I continue my research, I have uncovered various articles that would make for interesting discussion. I will first focus on the specifics in terminology of gaming literacy and utilizing the article “Gaming Literacy: Game Design as a Model for Literacy in the Twenty-First Century” by Eric Zimmerman. Then, take into account of  gaming literacy examples in Kurt D. Squire’s “Video-Game Literacy —— A Literacy of Expertise.” Lastly, I will present a specific example of a classroom setting where gaming literacy was its priority through “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a First-Year Approach To Gaming Across Curricula,” written by Jonathan Alexander and Elizabeth Losh. Through this discussion, what I hope I can accomplish is to provide an adequate contribution with my own comprehension of gaming literacy. Despite my experiences with gaming, I am still not familiar with discussing gaming through academic conventions. However I am willing to investigate the medium in order to see how I myself can possibly incorporate gaming literacies into the classroom setting.

In Eric Zimmerman’s article “Gaming Literacy: Game Design as a Model for Literacy in the Twenty-First Century,” he discusses how traditional literacy have (2007) “centered on reading and writing —— the ability to understand, exchange, and create meaning through text, speech, and other forms of language” (p. 23). He then continues about how traditional literacy was extended through media literacy, which enabled those same reading and writing strategies towards literary text with the notion of media literacy, diversifying the notion of critical thinking with various aspects of media such as advertisements and film.

Zimmerman continues stating how both literacies are “necessary but not sufficient for one to be fully literate in our world today. There are emerging needs for new kinds of literacy that are simply not being addressed, needs that arise in part from a growing use of computer and communication networks” (Zimmerman, 24, 2007). What Zimmerman appears to imply is that as technologies continue progressing and advances, so does the definition of literacy. Therefore, the inclusion of gaming as literacy becomes necessary since as technology continues progressing within society, so will the capacities of literacy. What Zimmerman addresses presents a need in allowing a discussion on gaming within the topic of literacy.

Furthermore, Zimmerman argues that since games are systematic since it involves the rules of the game and in order to “play, understand, and —— especially —— design games, one ends up having to understand them as systems” (pg. 26). He continues arguing that it doesn’t just end at understanding games as systems but to also analyze the aspect of playing the game. He states that ( 2007) “play is far more than just play within a structure. Play can play with structures. Players do not just play games, they mod them, engage in meta-play between games, and develop cultures around games” (pg. 27). He continues in stating how playing the game can translate into literacy since it incorporate’s the game’s task into the player’s skill level. Depending on the player’s motivation, each task can be achieved depending on how much devotion and time the player will be willing to spare (Zimmerman, 2007, pg. 27). Thus, like with reading and analyzing text, it would acquire the player in conducing skill-set strategies in beating various levels. The main core of Zimmerman’s argument is to show how the complexities of gaming can still be interpreted as reading. How the player will interpret the game depends on the player’s devotion to the tasks being displayed onscreen. The player’s relation to the gameplay itself, with consideration of Zimmerman’s argument, is what constitutes as gaming literacy.

The act of gameplay becomes tied in with what Kurt Squire presents in “Video-Game Literacy —- A Literacy of Expertise.” What Squire discusses is viewing the game as an artifact and taking into account of its space for rhetorical analysis. As Squire states (2008) in gaming, “without the player, there literally is no game. This leads to a core challenger for literacy researchers: How do we study a phenomenon that cannot exist without its players” (pg. 644). This further elaborates Zimmerman’s argument in that the players’ relationship with gaming is what equates with literacy. Squire continues by showcasing an actual video game example, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. He explains it as a first person shooter game which allows the player to make the conscious decision in stealing random automobiles and running over various pedestrians. For a player to read the game as a text, it would require the player to question why that task was being made and what occurred in the world after the result of the conscious world. Additionally, the issues that would raise in terms of rhetoric considering that the consequences of assault and battery are typically avoided if the player can escape the police in haste. Such metacognitive questions provides an ample of amount discussion for the classroom setting.

Furthermore, the game also allows players to customize their character by selecting the outfit, type of cars, and even choice of health and diet. He even claims that players even “appear to conceptualize the worlds and themselves within” (pg. 645). He cites players’ interviews for his source in that some “used the game as little more than a “pimp your ride” car-customization kit (he wanted to pursue a career in car customization), one used the game as a chase-scene simulator as a relief from school, and another as fantastical escape from the suburbs” (pg. 645). The purpose in revealing these perspectives is that he serves the main focus of his argument, in which that gaming literacy allows the player to interact with their literacy and even incorporate themselves into such games like Grand Theft Auto. When taking into account of the spaces within the game’s dimensions, as both Squire and Zimmerman have argued, the game exists as literacy because of the player’s interactions. Actively reading the game’s dimensions in addition to interacting as a player is what enables the main argument on gaming literacy from both Squire and Zimmerman.

The dimension of the game along and the interpretation of those dimensions ties in with the discussion in “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a First-Year Approach To Gaming Across Curricula,” an article authored by both Jonathan Alexander and Elizabeth Losh. The article features their study and observation of a year-long sequence course which was entitled “Computer Games as Art, Culture, and Technology.” It was taught at the UC Irvine and advised by three faculty members from Informatics, Computer Science, and Media Studies. The instructors had to strategize together in constructing a curriculum that allowed students in developing their critical thinking skills with computer and gaming studies which then fulfills their general education requirements for humanities, social sciences, and writing. In addition to lecture, students also had to attend a weekly seminar. In doing so, it provided students an equal amount of time for discussion on the rhetorics of the game while also learning various strategies in applying their knowledge through reading strategy skills. It was a class that primarily focused gaming literacy and to approach it through critical reading and writing activities.

The coursework in this case study takes on Squire’s and Zimmerman’s argument and puts it into action. The class requirements expected students to document and summarize (2010) “the basic principles of game design and how those principles were used in the development of games” (Writing and Gaming section, para. 1). The assignments were necessary in the development of students’ rhetorical analysis skills through gaming literacy. An example that Alexander and Losh cites in their case study is when students had to select a game and identify its “cultural significance or social usefulness” (Writing and Gaming section, para. 3). One student in particular focused her argument on the widely known Japanese card game and video game Pokemon. She analyzed that Pokemon’s social usefulness comes from how a child can further his or her development skills based on actively reading the text and images. For the Pokemon card game specifically, it requires the players to follow specific rules based on each card’s visual character and text, thus determining which of the character’s strengths outweigh their opponents. In doing so, players would need to actively read the gaming instructions and the card itself. The development of reading comprehension comes from the players understanding of the game and the rules that apply to gameplay. Additionally, players would have to communicate and cooperate with each other according to the rules. The game essentially requires players to actively communicate with one another in order for each round of gameplay to progress.

The student also “uses and cites, images throughout her essay, commenting upon them at length, noting in particular how the visual dimension of the game is intimately tied to gameplay” (Writing and Gaming Section, para. 3). The student analyzed the game’s rhetoric, noting how its aesthetics and gameplay appeals to its target audience. Pokemon are fictional creatures, often with big, childlike eyes, which would appeal to its younger target audience. The student’s argumentative purpose in identifying the Pokemon characters themselves was that it was marketably successful because of its popularity which also connected with her argument of the franchise being socially useful. To not only view the game for its gameplay and dimension but also considering the rhetoric of its producer also allowed the student to further her understanding of games in general. In identifying Pokemon as just socially useful, she is also implying that she views the game as not culturally significant but rather a successful marketing campaign that is able to provide useful tools for literacy development. The overall assignment allowed the student to further her critical reading skills through the integration of gaming literacy. The argument on gaming literacy from Squire and Zimmerman perseveres through the gaming literacy coursework and how it required students to specify their rhetoric through gaming literacy. Thus, showcasing how gaming literacy can be accomplishment depending on the specificity of the coursework requirements. It pushes students to go beyond with what they see by considering what the rhetorics may be from the producer’s or writer’s perspective.

In conclusion, my prior inquiries on gaming literacy is beginning to surface in regards to my own understanding. The successfulness of including gaming literacy in one’s own pedagogy depends on the instructor’s own understanding of that literacy. In doing so, the instructor can be able to incorporate gaming literacy if the course requirements has specific requirements in order for students to adapt their gaming literacy onto the page. While I may not necessarily include gaming literacy in my own coursework, I will strongly encourage students to pursue that literacy for their rhetorical analysis assignments. I do intend on incorporating all forms of literacy in my coursework plan and feel that the diversified approach to teaching would still require print literacy. In doing so, it would allow myself to incorporate my own understanding of literacy while also learning from how students comprehend on what they define as literacy. Students need a variety of different literacies to enhance their reading. It would require an intensive amount of specific guidance, especially for students who still view reading and gaming as two separate forms. So essentially, it would be essential to diversify a student’s schema of reading through the presentation of various literacies, which includes gaming. Therefore, students can have the option of furthering their reading comprehension through gaming literacy. Gaming literacy can serve as an useful tool in the reading classroom if utilized wisely. The attributes from introducing gaming literacy can be seen as positive since it would students to consider the dimensions and rhetorics of the game. Through continuous metacognitive conversation, gaming literacy can then continue making its way through academia.

Works Cited

Alexander, Jonathan and Losh, Elizabeth. (2010). “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a First-Year Approach to Gaming Across Curricula.” Currents in Electronic Literacy. Retrieved from: http://currents.dwrl.utexas.edu/FIP/intro.html

Squire, Kurt D. (2008). “Video-Game Literacy —- A Literacy of Expertise.” Handbook of
research on new literacies. 639-673. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=7FE94E971AA81905FEA110609E1B07E8?doi=10.1.1.173.474&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Zimmerman, Eric. (2007) “Gaming Literacy: Game Design as a Model For Literacy in the Twenty-First Century. The Video Game Theory Reader 2. 23-31. Retrieved from: http:// ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Chap_1_Zimmerman.pdf

Article review blogpost

Article Review: Revisiting Literacy through Gaming

“But even more, and specifically in terms of gaming, we argue that the very nature of games themselves, as rhetorically rich and performative spaces, serves to help students, with the right guidance, become much more aware of, familiar with, and conversant with the varieties of literacy and literate performance that different rhetorical situations may demand, prompt, or require.”

– Jonathan Alexander and Elizabeth Losh ( 2010)

Alexander, Jonathan and Losh, Elizabeth. (2010). “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a

First-Year Approach To Gaming Across Curricula.” Currents in Electronic Literacy.

As indicated in the article “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a First Year-Approach to Gaming Across Curricula,” written by both Jonathan Alexander and Elizabeth Losh, they mention how a rising number of compositionists and rhetoricians are focusing their attention to the details and aesthetics of video games and how gaming can be transferred over to the teaching of reading and writing. Of course, that detail is of no surprise, considering the fact that technology continues to progress throughout the 21st century as more and more classroom instructions are starting to become much more involved with various forms of media and technology. In doing so, there has been outlets for instructors to include visual texts within their teaching pedagogies. Interestingly enough, video games are one of the many forms of visual texts that are being included in the pedagogical conversation. Additionally, video games are also being considered as another example of literary form and as vital tools for students to hone their skills in literacy. Nevertheless, the purpose behind Alexander’s and Losh’s article is to contribute to the ongoing conversation on the debate with using video games as tools for literacy.

What had once been considered as either “mindless” or “for entertainment purposes only,” video games are now making its way into the academic conversation as well. In the introduction of Alexander’s and Losh’s article, they state on the importance of scholars continuing their responses and participation to this debate on gaming and academia. They reveal that “James Paul Gee first argued that video games support many literacy practices and exemplify a model for successful situated learning in What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy” (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

They then continue state that since Gee’s theory on gaming and its connection with education and literacy, many researchers have
“begun to question how the literacy movement has attempted to colonize game culture by channeling subversive behaviors into supposedly productive and normative conduct.  They have also drawn attention to the naïveté of presuming that proprietary platforms and machine code would be transparent enough to novice learners to model the literacy practices of initiates” (Alexander and Losh, 2010) In consideration of these perspectives, Alexander and Losh are aware of critics’ concerns since they are aware of Gee’s generalizations being made on gaming and how it essentially becomes another pedagogical conversation in itself considering that the concepts of gaming and coding doesn’t appear to coexist with the teaching pedagogy of reading and writing. Additionally, it raises questions on whether intermixing theory of literacy and gaming is even necessary at all. Yet, Alexander and Losh bring up the issue on how there appears to be more speculative theory rather than contributing with actual studies on these disciplines combing forces into the teaching literacy. Both authors then ask the question “What does a multi-disciplinary approach to gaming offer students, both in terms of their ability to think critically about games as games, but also in terms of their ability to reflect critically about complex contemporary communication practices and how different disciplines might use awareness of those literacy practices to build and communicate knowledge production?” (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

This question serves as a hypothesis for their study on a first year year-long multi-disciplinary course which also key points into the main heart of their argument. The main purpose of their argument is the fact that the concepts of gaming can be an useful tool for literacy if given the right guidance and preparation by instructors. It has potential in providing a metacognitive awareness between the digital and literary text through rhetorical analysis. It all depends on the structure of the teaching pedagogy and whether the topics in discussion are congruent with the mechanics and theory of gaming (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

The majority of their article devotes their observation and study of a course called “Computer Games as Art, Culture, and Technology” held at University of California in Irvine. The course was taught by three faculty members from Informatics, Computer Science, and Media Studies. The task at hand was to provide guidance for students in developing their critical thinking skills with computer gaming and gaming studies while also fulfilling their general education requirements for humanities, social sciences, and writing. Thus meant that students were not expected to just study the concepts of gaming and design but to also incorporate the digital into their analysis. Of course, the authors are concerned with the use of computer games in teaching pedagogy, especially in regards on the complexities of gaming and whether that could translate well into the notions of literacy. The questions being raised are on just how faculty and students can navigate through the complex layers of gaming literacy and language literacy, considering that gaming and writing are both so vast in various layers. (Alexander and Losh, 2010). They then continue with “Put another way, while Gee might be correct in asserting that “[w]hen people learn to play video games, they are learning a new literacy” (13), we would amend his comment to say that they are learning new literacies and that those literacies might look very different than the traditional literacy skills advocated for by compositionists.  And while we may agree that such academic authoring skills are important, we want to forward the notion that a multi-disciplinary study of gaming may more successfully advance a complex meta-awareness of multi-literacies and rhetorical awareness—and that such awareness may ultimately be more significant than the completion of a standard academic research essay” ( Alexander and Losh, 2010). Essentially, the authors do contrive to a consensus on how such complexities can still be a possibility. In consideration to Gee’s identification of video games as a “new literacy,” that itself can generate a new option in literacy that further expands from the traditional standard of what makes an academic essay. Their amends to the term “new literacy” basically is an indication that despite video games being a different form of literacy, it still serves as potential for teaching literacy in an academic institution. Therefore, students can uncover new ways in further developing critical writing and thinking skills through critical reading of gaming.

Continuing onward with the authors’ observation, the article further explains the course, citing specifically on gaming critic Ian Bogost’s theory on how gaming is “a prime example of a “cultural artifact that straddle[s]” both humanistic and technologically-oriented disciplines” (Alexander and Losh, 2010). They continue to state on how Bogost argues that if gaming were to be discussed in the same vein as with literature, then there has to be a willingness to create a bridge between computer science and technology studies. Upon doing so, there has to be an awareness of the difference in rhetoric with gaming. Which, as indicated in this article, was the attempt with the course since it required students to not just interpret the game as a literary genre but to also interpret its dimension of algorithm and its game space.  And so, it would go deeper than what they know from knowledge and gaming experience but requires them to delve into the complexities of coding. This of course, lead into some difficulties for many students since they couldn’t just interpret on the surface but to also interpret and interact with the complexities of the gaming interface itself. Nevertheless, both Losh and Alexander theorized that either way students gained and developed a new understanding for gaming. It also pushed them to push their perspectives on gaming and to push that further with their schema of literary theory by thinking about the technological game space itself. The article concludes that gaming has potential in offering students a more complex rhetorical awareness and can serve as another option for further students to further develop meta-cognitive skills since the allegories of the literal coding space and overall gameplay can be parallel to how one approaches reading and writing literary text (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

In regards to this article as a whole, I feel that this serves as importance for the conversation on utilizing visual texts in an integrated reading/writing classroom. While I feel the article could’ve benefitted on a more in-depth case study which included a more intensive look on actual work from students, it overall provided a rather interesting perspective to think on. In a sense, it challenges its gaming audience by not just theorizing on games by its surface but to really think about the technological mechanics contained in such visual texts. Therefore, it also puts emphasis on how it can potentially be a practicing tool for students in furthering their literacy and encourages students to continue practicing their rhetoric through other disciplines. All in all, I feel that this article was beneficial for my interest and taught me on how evaluating visual texts should go beyond than what we can literally see.

Oldham, Joanna. “The Book of the Film: Enhancing Print Literacy at KS 3.” (new blog #5)

As seen in my current, and tentative, reading list, I have included an article entitled “The Book of the Film: Enhancing Print Literacy at KS 3” written by Joanna Oldham. While the article applies to secondary education, I had found it to be very useful for my previous analytical research assignment and feel that it would still be helpful for this current research assignment as well. In Oldham’s article, she reveals on a case study she did toward a class of young primary students, all of whom were studying Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. The class was separated into groups, one selection of students having watched the film adaptation simultaneously with the text while the rest of the class were only required to simply read the text. The group who got to watch the film adaptation also had the opportunity in participating in various in-class activities, one of which involved them re-interpreting a scene from the text as if they themselves were their own film cast. Such activities taught that group of students in enhancing their schema by utilizing their reading skills through film and interpretation. By doing so, it enhanced their reading comprehension and were able to perform with high marks on their tests for Oliver Twist since they could visually remember contexts from the novel considering that the film adaptation served as a tool in fueling their schema during the examination period. As for the other group, they struggled in their comprehension since they only studied the text without having a chance to practice and discuss their comprehension through innovative activity. She states that “If film aided the processes involved in reading with meaning, it would seem that reading with meaning assisted the processes involved in writing with control, range, and variety” (Oldham, 44). Therefore, she concludes that students are highly more likely in really comprehending with the text if they are given opportunities in comprehending with literary texts through the assistance of various activities incorporating their other learning styles while also reading visual and motion picture texts as well. That way, students can additionally learn on their own in discovering other modes of reading strategies

In my previous research, I noted that the one issue I had with Oldham’s study was that she unintentionally appeared to limit her definition of film as merely adaptation. Granted that even though the main focus of her research was on using film adaptation as a guide for the teaching of reading, I still couldn’t help but also think about how various film adaptations are so vast and still different from the original texts. So, there were still a few questions raised during my analysis of her article. And upon re-reading her article and re-evaluating some of my annotations, I still have a few of the same reservations. However, I now do feel that I shouldn’t overthink so much on her definition of film, since overall her case study provided an essential guide for me in seeing how theories of using film in the classroom can be incorporated. Plus, it’s an indication on how Oldham’s theory is just one of the many other examples of incorporating visual texts. Most especially considering that there are obviously many other aspects of visual texts due to the vast array of media and technology. Additionally, I am still fascinated with the classroom activities she revealed in her study, such as students playing film director and re-interpreting scenes of text for their own film, and feel that some of these can be re-incorporated and adjusted in order to fit into a college classroom setting. Thus, it also gives readers an idea on how this theory of enhancing literacy through film adaptation can come into practice through this case study. Therefore, I still feel that Oldham’s article provides the needed commentary for my continuing research.   

New Research topic (new blog #4)

Alexander, Jonathan and Losh, Elizabeth. “Whose Literacy Is it Anyway? Examining a First Year
Approach to Gaming Across Curricula. Currents in Electronic Literacy. 2010.

Alexei, Sherman. The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me. Writing about Writing.
362-366. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Baron, Dennis. “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies.” 422-442. Bedford
St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Constanzo, William. “Film as Composition.” College Composition and Communication.
National Council of Teachers of English. 79-86. Web.  Feb. 1986.

Freire, Paulo. “The Importance of the Act of Reading.”

Golden, John. Reading in the Dark: Using Film as a Tool in the English Classroom. National
Council of Teachers. 79-86. 1986.

Hill, Charles A. “Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes.” Intertexts: Reading Pedagogy
in College Writing Classrooms. 123-150. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press. Mahwhah. 2003.

Lieberman, Max. “Four Ways to Teach with Video Games.” Currents in Electronic Literacy. 2010.

Malcom X. Learning to Read. Writing about Writing. 353-356. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

McCormick, Kathleen. The culture of reading and the teaching of English. Manchester university press. Manchester: 1994.

McKenney, Craig. “Building the Labyrinth: Adapting Video Game  Design Concepts for Writing Course Design.”  2007. Mar. 2, 2013.http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/gaming_issue_2008/McKenney_Building/index.html.

Oldham, Joanna. “The Book of the Film: Enhancing Print Literacy at KS 3.” English in Education. 1999.

To revise my entire project idea as a whole, the topic that I now want to explore is on theories in teaching reading and writing through visual texts. And by visual texts, my research and analysis would also include film, video games, and graphic novels. Prior to this semester, I had done some intensive research in regards to the teaching of film utilizing film. I want to continue my research but instead bring the focus to other mediums of visual texts. In doing so, I feel that it would be best in broadening my research a bit by also exploring other theories that aren’t just inclusive to the theory of teaching reading through film. As evident with my tentative reading list, I still want to include some personal narratives as well, such as the essays from Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie. That way, they can serve as examples where literacy was achieved through different modes of texts. And in doing so, I would want to showcase how their narrative would serve as purpose in setting an example for theories on how utilizing visual texts can be relevant in the theory for teaching literacy through visual texts. Most especially since they provide commentary on how the notion of reading and literacy can be furthered from the array of different modes of visual texts as well.

Nevertheless, I would have to be careful in approaching my analysis, most especially since I don’t want to unintentionally do a disservice to these theories by referring to their topics as “unconventional.” I recall earlier this semester, where there began a discussion on why do we label texts as “traditional, canonical” and unintentionally “other” texts that are presumably “unconventional” through an unforeseen “academic” lens. So, this research analysis project would require me to be dedicated and carefully consider the analysis for my sources while also synthesizing my own comprehension and schema of this research project.

What I hope I would accomplish with this research topic is that it would help confirm my own beliefs in the idea of these theories revolving around expanding theories of teaching pedagogies that choose to include aspects of technology and media in the classroom setting. Additionally, I would also be able to take a step back and consider the counter-argument, as to why some may be hesitant with such theories. Of course, that may be already be a bit of a challenge considering that, throughout this past semester, I’ve grown even more engaged with the theory of including visual texts in the classroom setting, especially in regards to the current wave of technology in today’s society. Yet, through this research project, I should be able to gain a much more intensive understanding of my research topic. And so, I plan to weave in my analysis and research through the synthesis of my comprehension as I touch upon the question “How can we teach reading through modes of literary text?”

I do hope that, unlike with my previous topic idea, this offers a better opportunity for me to create conversation by utilizing my topic idea. I feel that by researching such theories in relation to my topic, that I may be organize my own developing course units, in which I hope to incorporate visual texts within my teaching pedagogy, through my research project. I honestly feel quite excited with this topic since I want to uncover more theories that involve using visual texts in teaching pedagogies.

Blog 5

I decided for this blog to choose from one of my reading lists, which is a closer look at Sherman Alexie’s “The Joy of Reading: Superman and Me.” What I will do is revolve this blog around the notion of literacy sponsorship while taking into account of Alexie’s rhetoric.

In the beginning of Alexie’s article, he mentions his father who, “was an avid reader of westerns, spy thrillers, murder mysteries, gangster epics, basketball player biographies, and anything else he could find” (Alexie, 12). He then continues with “Our house was filled with books. They were stacked in crazy piles in the bathroom, bedrooms, and living room. In a fit of unemployment-inspired creative energy, my father built a set of bookshelves and soon filled them with a random assortment of books about the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, the Vietnam War, and the entire 23-book series of the Apache westerns. My father loved books, and since I loved my father with an aching devotion, I decided to love books as well” (Alexie, 12). What I find interesting with this passage from Alexie’s article is that his personal narrative doesn’t just begin his relationship with the Superman comics but also introduces his father. In a sense, this whole passage is a meta-narrative, where it’s a story of finding a literacy sponsor through a literacy sponsor of another. So basically, Alexie’s story began with how his father indirectly introduced literacy through the action of constantly buying books when he had a chance. Of course, the personal narrative primarily focuses on Alexie and him utilizing Superman comics as a gateway for his continued growth in literacy despite being in an academic environment where he, a Native American Indian, was being practically barred from having any literacy sponsors in a school environment due to societal roles expected from his community. Yet, it is important for Alexie to include a brief introduction of his father since it subtlety references how his father also chose to deter away from that expectation for males within his community to not continue their literacy pursuits. In doing so, his father wanted to continuing sponsoring himself for literacy by buying an array of different literary genres, from historical texts to murder mysteries. In doing so, his father not only sponsored his literacy but also for his family as well, including Alexie. Although the article doesn’t get into a great detail about his father, I feel that it shows how actions really do speak louder than words. The fact that he was surrounded by texts and saw his father reading was what sparked Alexie’s literacy. It made me think back on my own personal narrative, where instructors would request for me to read so and so as an aside for my leisurely reading. I often appreciated it when my former instructors made reading suggestions for me. And I often do the same with my own students, whether it be as a tutor or as their TA. And it also made me think of myself during my childhood, where I grew up surrounded by books as a well. I remember reading original versions of Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland since my mom purchased a set of anthologies filled with children’s stories at a garage sale. In doing so, is what I feel helped serve as literacy sponsorship for my own academic pursuits.

Thinking back and revisiting this article has made me realize perhaps “Superman and Me” isn’t just about Alexie and the comics but also, perhaps, him subtlety showing that his father was his literacy Superman too since he was the one who brought those books in the household.  Plus he mentioned that he looked up to him and thought of him as a hero. And so, perhaps it’s also an indication that we as instructors ought to aim in being a literacy super-hero as well.

Blog #4: Revisiting the Definition of Literacy Sponorship

Alexei, Sherman. The Joy of Reading and WritingL Superman and Me. 362-366. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Baron, Dennis. “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies.” 422-442. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Brandt, Deborah. “Sponsors of Literacy.” Writing about Writing. Bedford St Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Freire, Paulo. “The Importance of the Act of Reading.”

Golden, John. Reading in the Dark: Using Film as a Tool in the English Classroom. National Council of Teachers. 79-86. 1986.

Malcom X. Learning to Read. Writing about Writing. 353-356. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

McCormick, Kathleen. The culture of reading and the teaching of English. Manchester university     press. Manchester: 1994.

The topic that I want to explore and address for my research analysis project is on sponsorship of literacy. That is, I want to re-visit on how we define sponsorship and how we ought to re-evaluate on what sponsorship of literacy exactly means. My topic inquiry question I have for this project is who really sponsors our literacy? And how might we expand further on the different dimensions of literacy sponsorships, other than just academic instruction. Of course, this isn’t to say that I’m suggesting that academic instruction should not be literacy sponsors. However, what I’m trying to vouch for is that teaching pedagogies calls for more outlets other than just the traditional guidelines for teaching reading and writing. Gaining literacy isn’t just from instruction but also goes beyond classroom instruction. In doing so, that is why classroom instruction these days needs to incorporate technology and visual texts since what literacy strategies is expanding in the 21st century.

From all the past course texts I’ve read and the past research that I’ve done prior to this semester, I’ve now learned that sponsorship of narrative comes from more than just the instructors and institutions but rather how one perceives is their literacy sponsor. For instance, I will be utilizing Sherman Alexei’s “The Joy of Reading: Superman and Me” and using his narrative of finding his literacy sponsor, which was Superman comics, as part of my collective research analysis. In doing so, it also sets an example of how we ought to incorporate different mediums of literature, such as visual texts, as other means for students in searching for additional literacy sponsors. Considering that what Alexei defines his literacy sponsors definitely differs from other narratives of literacy sponsors, I want to continue exploring other narratives and synthesize that with my research analysis.

So, for my research, I want to explore on the abstract and subjective views on literacy sponsors. For this project, I’ll provide article reviews on each of my selected sources while also synthesizing my analysis on how this relates back to literacy sponsorship and how it sets a precedent for what needs to be established in academic instruction. Additionally, I will revert back to the question of “who really sponsors our literacy” and think on the history of literacy sponsors and comparing/contrasting that with modern day developments of literacy sponsorship. Since it feels as if literary texts and technology are slowly becoming “conventional” for academia, I want this project to address the importance on how and why literacy sponsorship needs to be re-evaluated, most especially since what defines sponsorship unfortunately falls too much into “privileged” discourse communities. So essentially, it would require me to revisit and re-evaluate the notions and definitions of literacy sponsorship.

Of course, all this is not set in stone. My topic ideas still need a lot of work and I’m not 100 percent on my selected sources. And of course, I will continue adding/omitting my sources. However, my reading list so far feels efficient enough, for now, where I can evaluate and address how each of my selected sources sets an example of or refers to the ever-expanding notions of literacy sponsorship.

blog 3

For this blog, I would like to revisit a reading that we have completed thus far, which is Paulo Freire’s “The Importance of the Act of Reading.” The reason why is because, to be honest, I have grown so enamored with this essay. Call me biased but I think it’s totally important that we ought to re-read the world since that essentially is connect with language. And so I want to revisit this essay as the topic for my blog #3. Though no need to fear since this blog isn’t just going to gush over the language Freire has in his analytical and rhetorical essay. For this blog I will incorporate with the plans that I have for my course plan semester. So basically, this will reveal what I am currently working on in my ENG 710 course. In doing so, I am going to connect with how Freire’s essay correlates with what I have planned for my future course in composition.

Originally last semester in ENG 709, I didn’t want to have a focused theme in my course semester plan units (or actually, year-long plan since my final was going to be the stretch year course, ENG 104/105). A theme that kept popping secretly in my head was the theme of identity. However I figured that it was “pointless” and that I didn’t want to be that teacher with an agenda every class considering that my expertise of interest in my research consists of such topics like women and gender studies, race/class/gender topics in pop culture, etc. I guess it came from my undergrad days when some students would complain about how their female instructors kept pushing their feminist agenda in their literature courses. Looking back, I found it interesting that the ones who complained the most were coincidentally male students. This isn’t to make a generalization since all my male friends are very open-minded about feminism. Sadly, it is typical to see males who react that way towards female instructors that want to create a diverse platform for students. Nevertheless, it would be problematic if these instructors only relished on feminism without adding context and connection with the course topic.

In referring back to last semester, I finally then realized during winter break, that it would be best to rely on a theme. However, I wasn’t sure if I needed to rely on the theme of identity. Yet it wasn’t until just this semester, when I read Paulo Freire’s essay, that suddenly everything came into place for me. I realized that I HAD to do a theme on identity since it was necessary for me. I think a section from Freire’s text that would best connect with my revelation is, on page 8, which he states

“A little while ago, with deep emotion, I visited the home where I was born. I stepped on the same ground on which I had first stood up, on which I first had walked, run, begun to talk, and learned to read. It was that same world which first presented itself to my understanding through my reding it. There I met again some of the trees of my childhood. I recognized them without difficulty. I almost embraced their thick trunks —- young trunks in my childhood. Then, what I like to call a gentle or well-behaved nostalgia, emanating from the earth, the trees, the house, carefully, developed me. I felt the house content, feeling the joy of someone who has red-encountered loved ones” ( Freire, 8).

So, with the purpose of the quotation in connection to my revelation, I like Freire, had to revisit my own thoughts. While I didn’t go back to my old childhood hometown back in Northern Virginia, I reminisced a bit on my own educational experiences. My best moments, was when I was allowed to truly express myself and emphasize on why my voice matters. Plus, referring back to his quotation, revisiting places, whether literal or abstract, is important and is key when practicing academic reading and writing. So, with this essay, I would have students annotate this article and write a difficulty paper on this, since the language, though beautiful, may be tricky for developmental students. Additionally, it would help aid them in understanding the text by first expressing what they might find difficulty rather than to immediately search for meaning. And I’ll constantly ask students to revisit and re-read the text throughout the semester. Since they’ll need this as one of their guides when working on an analytical paper on how identity is misrepresented in pop culture as their assignment. That way they can understand how reading is actually a constant cycle and they must not only read the world, but re-read the world. And by re-reading the world, that includes literary texts as well.

Blog #2

My previous blog several weeks ago ended on the question of just “how can we as educators diversify our understanding of literacy and transfer that knowledge to our students?” I concluded that perhaps I would need to take this a step at a time and not let this tension burden my inner psyche. Of course, after beginning that process by taking a few steps more in the past few weeks, it then made me realize that a possible way for we as educators to diversify our understanding and to transfer that is through the essence of reading itself. And basically, our interpretation of it. Most especially through our conscious experience in what surrounds us and just how we view language. Interestingly enough, I feel that this week’s readings gave me some leads in constructing possible theories.

For instance, with Louise M. Rosenblatt’s critical essay “Writing and Reading: The Transactional Theory,” there are various points and theories she makes that resonated and felt that I should take into consideration for my own teaching philosophies and theories. She primarily focuses her attention on the essence of transaction. She states that “My use of the terms “transaction” and “transactional” is consonant with the contemporary twentieth-century shift in thinking about the relationship of human beings to the natural world” (Rosenblatt, 3). She then cites from John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley’s “In Knowing and the Known,” that the notion of interaction has become too apparent into the idea of viewing humanity and nature as “separate entities” (Rosenblatt, 3). She furthers her citation with
The newer paradigm, reflecting especially Einsteinian and subatomic

developments in physics, emphasizes their reciprocal relationship. The scientist, “the observer,” to use Niels Bohr’s phrasing, is seen as it part of his observation” (1959, p. 210). Instead of separate, already-defined entities acting on one another (an “interaction”), Dewey and Bentley (1949, p. 69) suggested that the term “transaction” be used to designate relationships in which each element conditions and is conditioned by the other in a mutually-constituted situation” (Rosenblatt, 3).
So basically, what she states is that transaction, as indicated by Dewey and Bentley, be utilized as tools that would identify the relationship amongst discourses and how they intertwine and interact with each other. Further into her analysis, Rosenblatt argues on language that “it is often forgotten that language is always internalized by an individual human being in transaction with a particular environment” (Rosenblatt, 5). She then continues with “No language act, however, can be thought of as totally public or totally private. Always anchored in individuals, it necessarily involves both public and private elements, the base as well as the tip of the “iceberg.” And, although we speak of individual signs or words, we know that words do not function in isolation, but always in particular verbal, personal, and social contexts” (Rosenblatt, 5).
By keeping with what Rosenblatt has in mind, this means we ought to consider that language in our own understanding is internalized and not necessarily something we would reveal fully out in the world. However, in consideration of transactional theory, perhaps we ought to treat our cognition with language as ways of transacting. I may be way off but perhaps we can thus treat our internal and external usage of language as a hybrid of sorts. That is, we should hybrid our transactions into a synthesis of our intellect. What we write and read internally can be transferred externally through our hypothesis. And in a way, we have to treat it as a metacognitive experience. So, it would be beneficial if we ought to create external and internal conversation. That is why it’s important in metacognitive response to the language that we’re observing. We can’t just read or write the language. We have to literally experience language in pretty much the same fashion as Friere argues for in his analytical essays.

Of course, this is easier said than done, especially when in consideration of basic writers/readers. You can’t simply tell basic writers to ‘think on transactions’ especially if they’re not familiar with that discourse. So, it’s important that we approach it with as much delicacy as possible. In fact, in Cheryl Hogue Smith’s article “Interrogating Texts,” she discusses on how many students, especially basic writers, often come to college unprepared with the prior knowledge of writing and reading processes. More often than not, they even see “re-reading” as a sign of “weakness” and would much rather skim through text (61). Smith then retorts that instructors should then acknowledge to basic writers that even the most advanced, “professional” still has to re-read and analyze their reading (62). By doing so, it shows students that, reading can be transactional and that we need to view reading and writing as intertwined entities. So, we have to converse with the text. Which would mean that re-reading and annotation is necessary. By doing so, we can negotiate from the text by constantly being involved and constantly experimenting with different writing processes, whether they be summarizing, note-taking, double journal entries. Anything that would constantly fuel our intellect and understanding in order to continue negotiating with language. And keeping in mind of Rosenblatt’s argument, we have to understand that basic writers, especially in a new college environment, may feel uncomfortable in sharing their internal negotiation. So, by continued guidance, we can help ease their discomfort and hopefully they may be willing to add to the discourse conversation.

Now, keeping all this mind, this I feel helps with my previous question. Communication and how we negotiate and experiment with language is they key in externally transferring our internal understanding to students. However, the question I now have is, once we establish that diversity in our knowledge, how can we properly keep in mind with various theories and make it out own? Additionally, can there be a “right” or “wrong” approach? The articles this week touched upon in how we can inform students that sometimes our “interpretation” can be “wrong.” But, what if our own interpretation is “wrong.” How can we avoid that possibility? Or is unavoidable?

My blog ramblings

Jolliffe, David A., and Allison Harl. “Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Studying the ‘Reading Transition’ from High School to College: What Are Our Students Reading and Why?”

Freire, Paulo. “The Importance of the Act of Reading.”

Gioia, Dana. “On the Importance of Reading.”

Gee, James. “What is Literacy?”

In regards to this week’s readings, I have to say that it brought in quite the emotional response for me. The reason why is all my life, I’ve actually struggled with how I define myself as a reader. As someone who has earned a BA and MA in English, I was always ashamed in admitting that I don’t really practice enough activeness in my daily reading life. However, after reading the rhetorical and argumentative essays of Harl, Jolliffe, Friere, Goia, and Gee, I then realized that I shouldn’t have felt so ashamed of myself. Even if I may not be as a compulsive reader as many of my peers and mentors, I technically am an active reader too. If I’m not reading literary texts, then I’m browsing through articles on the Internet. Considering that I’m fortunate enough in having a group of intelligent thinkers as my Facebook friends, I’m constantly absorbing their style of writing in my newsfeed. Since we are in an age of millennialism where technology continues to have its hand in mandating how society should function and communicate, it is beneficial that I am quite proficient with texts within hyperspace as well. That way, I can acquire possible strategies that may aid students with their readership.

Therefore, how I was able to synthesize my understanding of each of the articles was through my schema and my emotional response to the notion of readership and literacy. Considering my bias, I felt quite engaged with each of the articles. And interestingly enough, I found it interesting that all of the articles appeared to equally share the same idea that how we define literacy needs to be re-evaluated. To read can’t simply be limited to just reading a literary text and how we comprehend it. Instead, reading needs to be seen as much more complex than that. How we gained literacy wasn’t just through grammar lessons for it was also on how we incorporated with language and how our growing understanding of the English language encompassed our daily lives. So, with academic reading and writing, it must be approached that same way as well.

For instance, in Friere’s “The Importance of the Act of Reading,” cites an example of how he learned reading from his personal narrative by arguing that the surrounding environment around him was a living form of text for him. On page 6 of his article, he states “The texts, words, letters of that context were incarnated as well in the whistle of the wind, the clouds of the sky, the sky’s color, its movement; in the color of flag, the shape of leaves, the fragrance of flowers – roses, jasmine; in tree trunks; in fruit rinds: the varying color tones of the same fruit at different times —- the green of a mango when the fruit is first forming, the green of a mango fully formed, the greenish yellow of the same mango ripening, the black spots of an overripe mango — the relationship among these colors, the developing fruit, its resistance to our manipulation, and its taste. It was possibly at this time, by doing it myself and seeing others do it, that I learned the meaning of the word squashing” (Friere, 6).

From that quotation, it made me think back from my own narrative. As a child, I too viewed the world and also incorporated vocabulary with what I saw. Seeing signs on the streets, I would visualize the redness of the stop sign and the black and white scrapings on the fading speed limit signs. Whenever the autumn leaves would fall, I’d visualize ‘orange’ and ‘red’ as it fell against the green lawn. I’d even think of ‘falling’ as I looked at the falling leaves. While I can’t eloquently re-paint what I envisioned during my younger years like Freire, my point is that what we learn isn’t restrictive to just the classroom setting but also with our daily life. I think that is why it’s essential to perhaps have students spend a day documenting their surroundings and have them metacognitively write about what they see and what thoughts they’re envisioning and even question their own reactions to their metacognition. By doing so, it would teach them that practicing academic reading and writing doesn’t just come from the texts but also how they react to their world.

This also makes me think of Goia’s “On the Importance of Reading” in which she states “Readers play video games, watch television; they do these things, but they do them in
a balanced way, versus people who are, increasingly, simply passive consumers of electronic entertainment “ (Goia, 2). Basically, she argues that many readers these days tend to balance out their tasks. And my thoughts as I read through is that in duration of their task of playing a video game, is that they’re also responding to what they see and whether or not they’re invested with what a character may be doing or saying depending on the genre of the game. As with passive consumers, Goia then states that “The passive people come home, watch TV, play video games, go onto the Internet, talk on the phone, go back to the TV, put a DVD in – and then it’s time to go to bed” (Goia, 2). So, essentially, the passive consumers on the other hand don’t create a metacognitive conversation. They simply view the game as a game without re-evaluating on the game’s purpose and whether their portrayal of, let’s say, gender constitutes a problem. What I feel Goia may be saying is that we as educators must be aware of how we should approach literacy and how we can convince the more passive consumers in creating metacognition within their daily routine as well. That way, they can establish on how to incorporate new ways in developing their critical thinking and writing skills through how they “read” their tasks outside of academia.

So, the question I have is just how can we as educators diversify our understanding of literacy and transfer that knowledge to our students? I mentioned earlier in that my reading habits and affiliation with technology and Facebook can give me an advantage with future students since I can express on how I too can identify with their tension with readership since I too often felt that I wasn’t an adequate enough of an active reader in the past. However, I still need to configure a way in synthesizing all those ideas into a clear course plan that wouldn’t result in students becoming lost through an overabundance of literary and hypertexts along with extensive tasks where they’re supposed to be critical read every breathing second of their lives.  Rather than me stressing over this notion, it may be best if I simply take this one step at a time and constantly review all my ideas and create a metacognitive conversation for myself as I continue researching and evaluating my own teaching theories.

Revised answers (eh, I feel so dumb)

1. What’s your philosophy of “good student writing”? What are you aiming for in your BW and FYC courses?
• Where does your philosophy fit in the overall landscape of the field?
• How is your philosophy evident in your course and unit plan?
• What tensions to do see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My philosophy of “good student writing” is that it is clear and specific with its main intent. As long as the writing is simple and to the point, I feel that would determine “good” student writing. Strengths of an essay come from a clear argument with a solid thesis, rather than “flowing” and “pretty” prose. It comes from the input of its main ideas. Of course, striving for perfection should be its intention. However, students should simply make the effort in producing something useful to add into the academic conversation rather than stressing over how “perfect” their grammar is and how “smart” they sound on the page. It’s what the effort that counts through the efforts of very sound and cohesive prose.

Therefore, what I aim for in my BW and FYC courses is to essentially teach my students writing with specificity and clarity in their assignments. And by doing so, I want to incorporate the importance of reading and how their analysis is what shapes their specificity in writing. As indicated in my course unit planner, there is an emphasis of reading and writing activities that students will have to participate in. The writing activities done in class will center around the art of freewriting and brainstorming. The reading activities will focus on students utilizing their schema when annotating various reading assignments. That way, students will learn that good writing comes from the integration of reading and writing strategies. So, not only would students have a chance to practice their reading and writing skills but will also have an idea on how they can utilize those skills when producing full-blown essays. By doing so, students can be taught how to further improve their reading and writing by practicing consistently in class.

Additionally, as indicated in the first unit of my course unit planner, the first assignment will be for students to write a personal/narrative essay where they discuss their own writing and student philosophy and how their past experiences with writing and being a student influenced them. So, I also want students to realize that “good” student writing comes from being self-aware of their own writing processes. By doing so, they would need to be aware of their own narrative as developing students and how strategizing and being self-aware of their own writing will allow them to continue developing strong and solid papers. The purpose of their narrative assignment would then serve as a stepping stone for allowing students to see the importance of creating a formula for themselves when beginning their writing process. Essays do not come from magic for they are created through our awareness and what we want to add to the academic conversation.

That being said, there certainly are a few tensions within my own teaching philosophies. While I like to imagine my students to get the idea on the importance of writing in specific prose, many beginning college students won’t put that idea into practice. I could say and suggest many options and students may respond positively to my advice. However, once they do those essays, especially when put under pressure, the specificity won’t come as easily. Yet, I do have to keep in mind that my class would be the platform for them to practice that and achieve that goal by the end of the semester. For I myself have to keep reminding myself that students typically produce better essays towards the concluding weeks since they’ve garnered an efficient amount of practice through in-class activities and homework.
.
2. What’s your philosophy/approach to “the writing process” in your BW and FYC courses?
• Where does your philosophy fit in the overall landscape of the field?
• How is your philosophy/approach evident in your course plan?
• What tensions to do see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My approach to the “writing process” in my BW and FYC courses is that it involves collaboration. As indicated in my course unit planner, students will actively participate in in-class writing activities in addition to group work. By doing so, students will have to collaborate their ideas with each other in order for their writing to be influenced. The writing process should not be a solo experience since writers need to collaborate their ideas together in order to develop their proofreading skills. Good writing also comes from getting advice from a second opinion.

My approach fits in the overall landscape of the field since it touches upon the importance of feedback in Composition writing. As stated before, the writing experience should not be a solo experience. As with good writing, it is essential for all writers to not only proofread their own work but to also learn how to share their own work for peer review. That way, writers are able to see what revisions and edits they consider to embellish on for their next draft.

So, in order for students to realize that, I will have them work in peer review groups. When in peer review, I would advise students to not “check” for grammar but rather ask each other whether the intent was clear, if a thesis can be located, and if the structure efficiently paralleled with their ideas. Students often feel tension during the peer review process, especially if they don’t want to receive severe criticism or are unsure if they’re capable of identifying any errors. So, I must establish an importance that students are to simply respond with their peers’ rough draft and explore what other ways a student can embellish on their ideas. By doing so, it creates a collaborative environment since students are helping with each other through feedback. Also, in one of my units, students will have to work in groups to construct an essay together in addition to doing a presentation.

There certainly is a risk with group essays, especially if a passive student refuses to cooperate. This actually is a great tension of mine since I myself am aware of how many students actually dislike group projects in general. However, in my class, I intend on having students to strategize in writing within “one voice” so that different writing styles can’t clash or overwhelm each other. Students will then have to ask each other on how they can cooperate in developing a clear essay within one voice. This is also an example of collaboration since not only must students research together but will also need to compromise on how they can write a strong paper together that will represent all of their ideas into one scholarly voice.
.
3. What’s philosophy of “good teaching” in your BW and FYC courses? What roles do see yourself taking on as a “good teacher”? How does “authority” play our in your notion of good teaching?
• Where does your philosophy fit in the overall landscape of the field?
• How is your philosophy evident in your course plan?
• What tensions to do see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My philosophy of good teaching is by collaboration. Not only would I want students to collaborate amongst themselves but I also want to collaborate with them as well. For instance, if a group is feeling lost on configuring ideas for a writing activity, what I’ll do is collaborate by listing out possible ideas and questions they can ask themselves. So basically, I feel that good teachers often help and engage with their students.

Also, when I have students collaborate their ideas during class seminar sessions, I’ll be sure to write out their ideas on the board in order for students to take notes. My philosophy of teaching in my BW and FYC courses would not consist of me being a “talking head.” While I will lecture throughout the semester, I also want students to actively participate in group and class seminar discussions. That way, not only will students learn from each other but I myself will learn from them so that my own writing can continue to improve.

The roles I see myself taking on as a “good teacher” are mentor and coach since not only would I want to simply be viewed as their instructor, I also want my students to know that I’ll be willing to mentor their writings and aide them if they are in need of suggestions for additional reading and writing practice. As indicated in my planner, I will require students to meet me with one-on-one conferences. That way, I can privately discuss students on any concerns they may be having or mentor them on how they may be able to improve in class. Additionally, I want to take on the role as a coach since I want students to realize that good writing takes practice. And good writing comes from reading.

So, my classroom environment will consist of me coaching students and making sure they actively participate in daily writing activities. The tension that may happen is whether I’ll be seen as an expert despite the fact that no teacher is ever perfect and “all knowing.” However, when considering my students’ perspectives, I cannot escape that assumption. And, in a sense, I would be an expert in comparison with my students since I’ve had more experiences with academic writing and my knowledge on reading and writing would be more intensive than a good majority of my students.
.
4. What’s your philosophy about the purpose and goals of BW and FYC?
• Where does your philosophy fit in the overall landscape of the field? e.g Framework for Success and WPA Outcomes?
• How is your philosophy (as well as elements of Framework and WPA) evident in your course ?
• What tensions to do see? ? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My philosophy about the purpose and goals of BW and FYC is that students should aim for specificity in their argument and to enhance their critical thinking skills. Many students enter academia, with only having knowledge of the five paragraph essay. In that students should strictly follow formula for essay writing. While essay writing does indeed follow a formula, in a sense, it shouldn’t be restricted to its structure alone. I believe that the reason why many students struggle with specificity in their writings is essentially because they’ve restricted themselves to only five paragraphs. So when they only write five paragraphs, they’re limiting their argument because they’re only writing to the “minimum.” As their instructor, it is then my job to mentor students and encourage them to expand their writing by utilizing their critical thinking skills when making a specific argument.

My philosophy fits in the overall landscape of the field since it stresses on the importance of students having developed their rhetorical analysis skills and can write strong essays with an academic voice. By doing so, students will need to build up their argumentative writing skills and to enhance their schema with critical thinking. To rhetorically analyze, students will need to have an argument and synthesize that into their rhetorical thinking. In order to do that, students must establish their ground in critical thinking through the building of creating a foundation of knowledge.

Therefore, since my philosophy relies on students to collaborate on their ideas and to be specific in their argument, students are able to write a full-blown essay that is critically profound by the end of the academic year. My philosophy, along with elements from the field, is evident in my course since students are to participate in rigorous writing activities. Additionally, students will have to actively write their reading responses and blog posts. By doing so, students are practicing their reading and writing comprehension from both the class and outside of class. Also, their major writing assignments, such as argumentative essays and research essays, pushes students to enhance their critical thinking skills by strategizing ways in conducting the academic voice through specificity and with cited research.

Nevertheless, I do feel some tensions with my views in regards to the purpose and goals of BW and FYC. The tension I see is whether I would efficiently be able to guide students while also following institution guidelines. During my years as a college student, I made many best attempts in being specific in my argument. I knew that when analyzing a source, I didn’t just summarize but also specifically argue for that source in relation to my thesis. So, I have some anxiety on whether or not I can effectively teach that to my students. That is, I worry if I will unintentionally be contradicting myself by not being specific in my own advice to students. However, it should be clear through the work I am requiring students to actively participate in for their writing to improve. So, all I would need to do is to simply mentor my students.

.
5. What’s your philosophy/approach to sequencing writing instruction and writing assignments?
• How do your writing assignments /activities/instruction build throughout the 30 weeks of the year?
• How do you build bridges between each of the writing assignments your course(s)?
• What tensions do you see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My approach to sequencing writing instruction and writing instruction will involve prior planning. I’d have to map out every semester, and map out the amount of time for such and such assignment to be done and turned in. As the semester progresses, so will the level of difficulty, I want students to challenge themselves by managing their time and being able to produce work within deadlines.

For instance, at the beginning of the semester, students will start off by writing a four page paper. By the end of the semester, the minimum requirement will be raised to 10 pages. By doing so, I must push my students by challenging on how they can delve deeper when writing critically in order to keep students engaged. Throughout the semester, a lot of their writing assignments will be bridged into bigger writing assignments for students to finish at home. Their reading/writing responses are what will aid students in further developing their ideas rather than having me to expect students to show up for lecture and write an essay “from scratch” even without any intensive homework assignments. And through all that, students will then have that foundation in preparation for writing an intensive and lengthy paper, utilizing everything they learned so far. These activities will allow students to realize the importance of pre-writing activities before creating a full-blown essay.

The class discussion and peer reviews themselves will be what bridges between assignments. That way, students will have a moment to “breathe” and not feel overwhelmed with the intensive work they have to endure for the semester. Plus, this bridge will guide students in developing furthering their knowledge of writing and editing. Since I feel that a writer’s journey shouldn’t be a solo experience, by bridging together their progress with each other, students will then be able to continue collaborating and learning from each other.

The tension students will have is whether the work will be exhaustive. My tension is that whether my expectations would exhaust my students which would result in students becoming passive. I have been grateful for the rigorous work my instructors gave to their classes. Through that work, it allowed me to become a better writer. Yet, there were times where I did feel burned out and felt that I would’ve done slightly better on some assignments had there been more room for students to “breathe.” However, since students have to realize that college work is a challenge and will continue being challenging throughout the years, students must already start preparing themselves for the intensiveness of upper-division writing. By doing so, students must begin rigorously writing at the beginning of their academic career. I do have to understand that, I can be that understanding instructor. I can, at the least, extend the deadline for an assignment. As long as I am not too “nice” and too “forgiving,” I can give a few passages of freedom for my students. Nevertheless, I must still abide by my standards for rigorous work since it would, overall, help my students achieve.

.
6. What’s your philosophy/approach to using readings and providing direct reading instruction into your course ?
• Where does your approach fit in the overall landscape of the field? Do you favor cognitive, expressivist, or socio-cultural reading theories?
• How do your reading assignments/activities/instruction build throughout the 30 weeks of the year?
• What tensions do you see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My approach to using readings and providing direct reading instruction into my course is I want students to integrate both reading and writing. By doing so, many of my homework assignments stem from their reading responses. Within those responses, I want them to cognitively ask what was difficult about the text and what about its aesthetics hinder or enhance their overall understanding. I also want students to actively respond to the text and point out what they could identify with the text in relation to their own cultural understanding. Additionally, I expect to students to express what their reactions were after annotating a text. So basically I want all reading theories to be touched upon in their written responses so that they can diversify their thinking in order to become more engaged as critical writers. My approach fits in with the overall landscape of the field since students will become enhanced in their rhetorical thinking and writing since it’ll stem from their developing reading skills.
My reading assignments, activities, and instruction will build throughout the year since the level of demand will increase. In addition to reading and responding before every class, students will have to additionally read in their book club. By establishing the importance of reading multiple texts, I will instruct the importance of developing writing through increased reading. Rather than me simply lecturing them, I want to show them how and why reading and writing collaborate together by having them participate in book clubs. Additionally, by also having them to read and annotate films and music videos, students will then learn they can hone their critical reading by practicing with elements from pop culture. That way, they can utilize those skills with literature. By doing so, students will have to become more innovative with the art of critical reading through means of visual media. There have been studies of individuals learning literacy through such mediums as video games. So, I want to put that theory into practice by having students look at visual mediums in addition to literature.

The tension I have is whether I can make those connections clear on the importance of integrating reading with their writing. Most especially if the students actually don’t do the reading. I can easily assume that all of my students will abide by my guidelines and actually read and respond to the text. However, that would be my assumption, since I honestly as an instructor would not want to assume for the worst. Yet, if I’m already having high expectations for my students, my tension centers on whether students will take advantage of my soft-spoken demeanor and not really respect my authority as their instructor. Therefore, by constantly requiring students to have written responses to all of their readings, the reading will become immersed with their developing writing skills. If their reading responses don’t meet the minimum I will have to dock them participation points and even inform them as a warning of what they should expect their grade to be if they don’t learn to integrate their reading and writing skills. So, I basically have to be firm with my students and simply hope for the best.

7. What’s your philosophy/approach to integrating reading and writing in BW and FYC?
• Where does your philosophy/approach fit in the overall landscape of the field?
• Where is your philosophy/approach to integrating reading/writing evident in your course?
• What tensions do you see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
As answered previously, my approach to integrating reading and writing is through my assignments. By keeping track of their cognitive thoughts while reading, students will then integrate those skills since they’ll have to write daily on blogs/journal entries. Keeping track of their thoughts while reading and what questions they may have while reading the text is essential for writing. When reading and writing become a collaborative force, students will then be able to improve on both skills since they’re being integrated. If neither skill is being utilized enough, students tend to struggle a bit more when writing an essay. So, in order for students to not risk that, I will have to incorporate my approach through my assignments.

My approach fits in with the overall landscape of the field since integrated reading and writing courses are starting to become developed within academia. By keeping that in mind, this would mean there has to be more of an emphasis for instructors to configure ways in incorporating that. Since reading and writing were commonly viewed as separated courses, configuring ways to integrate both skills can be quite challenging. However, I feel that by literally placing both assets together, is what I feel will create an integration.

The assignments throughout my course represents my philosophy since students will have to discuss their annotations and written assignments amongst each other in groups. All in-class activities and group projects require the integration of reading and writing. Students will not be able to do an efficient group paper if they have not read and annotated their research at all. Additionally, a blog response would be lacking if students did not actively annotate their readings. At the beginning of the semester, I will have students practice annotating readings during class in order for them to practice the art of annotation. That way students will then have an idea on what annotation is and why that is important.

That being said, my tension I have with my approach is whether that would be enough. For I feel that there is so much to be done in so little time. While integrated reading and writing courses are typically a year-long stretch course, I fear that it is not enough. For my experiences as a tutor, I have worked with students who were first year stretch course students that struggle immensely with the intensity and brevity of the workload expected from 2nd year Composition. In most cases, students aren’t used to the fast pace of the class in comparison to their previous semesters of Composition. Additionally, those classes don’t utilize and integrate those writing and reading activities. So, students aren’t given specific opportunities for them to practice them since it appears that many instructors are treating them as experts. I feel that the integration of reading and writing needs to continue within second year Composition as well since a lot of students do still need guidance and mentorship with reading and writing. However, I feel that the best that I can do is by enforcing students to keep my assignments in mind and to continue practice them even after the semester.

.
8. What’s your philosophy/approach to working with academically underprepared students?
• Where does your philosophy/approach fit in the overall landscape of the field?
• How is your philosophy/approach evident the developmental portion of your year-long plan?
• What tensions to do see? (Within your own views, within your course, within institutional expectations, and within the field)
My approach to working with academically underprepared students will be that I will simply treat them like I would with “prepared” students. I feel that these students need a lot of encouragement too. I would have to rely on tons of reading activities since the underlying problem is that many of these students lack the foundation of academic close reading. Active reading is what I feel is key with producing solid writing. So, many of those students will need to enhance their reading skills by activating that into my classroom.

My approach fits in with the overall landscape of the field because it is expected of students within academia to challenge themselves when writing. This fits in the overall landscape of the field since there’s already an expectation of preparation for “standard” college level writing. So, even with underprepared students who aren’t writing on the same level as the standard Composition students, I would need to expect my students to feel challenged. Plus, I wouldn’t want to be insulting if I’m undermining their abilities especially since they chose to be in college and would want to be challenged as well.
My course load will decrease with these students since the key thing is practice. So, I would have to encourage students and push them to challenge their thinking in order to have these students to produce a solid academic paper. The expectation of work as seen in my course plan, with the amount of writing activities, assignments, along with readings, is an indication of my philosophy since I want all students to actively work hard throughout the year.

A particular example is my usage of book clubs. What I expect of my students with book clubs is that I’d have students split off into groups and meet various times outside of class to discuss their chosen book. They will have to arrange deadlines for themselves in order to complete the book before the day of presentation. On the day of presentation, each group will present their book and discuss various themes they’ve chosen to embellish on for that novel. I feel that the book club will allow students to utilize their active reading. Additionally, it will allow students to practice leisurely reading through book clubs.

The tension these students have is they lack the proper practice for academic writing. But, with my tension, I fear if my guidance would be enough for them. The big question is whether they would listen to me and actively participate in reading. Also, for some students who skills are extremely lacking, they would need to continue staying in further remedial courses. Yet, it gives me tension if they’re expecting me to be their miracle worker when there’s so much I can teach them in so little time. So, I just need to help these students by having them to integrate reading and writing for all of their assignments. I should not worry about tensions that I do not actually have any control over. For students who severely lack literacy skills, it is a sad revelation of how education really is so limiting and not offered for all. So, the best thing I can do is to encourage my students and just do my best.