Thursday, August 28, 2008
September 5—Meet in Library
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday
And read this:
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/498361.html
And what do you think about merit pay for teachers?
And read this:
Teaching The Unteachable
By KURT VONNEGUT Jr.
I saw one horn five years ago--The Cape Cod Writers' conference in Craigville, Mass. It was more or less prayed into existence by three sweet preachers' wives. They were in middle life. They invited some Cape writers and English teachers to a meeting one winter night, and their spokeswoman said this: "We thought it would be nice if there were a writers' conference on Cape Cod next summer."
I remember another thing she said: "We thought established writers would probably enjoy helping beginners like us to break into the field."
And it came to pass. Isaac Asimov is the star this year. Stars of the past include Richard Kim and Jacques Barzun. Twenty-six students came the first year, forty-three the next, sixty-three the next, eighty-two the next, and nearly one hundred are expected this year-- in August. Most of the students are women. Several of them are preachers' wives in middle life.
So it goes.
I congratulated one of the founders recently, and she replied, "Well, it's been an awful lot of fun for all of us. Writers lead such lonely lives, you know, so they really enjoy getting together once a year to discuss matters of common interest."
That's the most delightful part of the game, of course: the pretense that everybody who comes to a writers' conference is a writer. Other forms of innocent summer recreation immediately suggest themselves: a doctors' conference, where everybody gets to pretend to be a doctor; a lawyer' conference, where everybody gets to pretend to be a lawyer; and so on--and maybe even a Kennedy conference, where everybody pretends to be somehow associated with the Kennedys.
"Who comes to writers' conferences?" you ask. A random sample of twenty students will contain six recent divorcees, three preachers' wives in middle life, five schoolteachers of no particular age or sex, two foxy grandmas, one sweet old widower with true tales to tell about railroading in Idaho, one real writer, one not merely angry but absolutely furious young man, and one physician with forty years' worth of privileged information that he wants to sell to the movies for a blue million.
"How much sex is there at writers' conferences?" you ask. The staff members, at any rate, don't come for sex. They hate conferences. They come for money. They are zombies. They want to collect their paychecks and go home. There are exceptions, who only prove the rule.
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
I saw another writers' conference born only this past June 18. I pick that date, since that was when the Student-Faculty Get-Acquainted Party was held. It was The West-Central Writers' Conference, sponsored by Western Illinois University, which is in Macomb, Ill. The party was held in the TraveLodge Motel in Macomb, in between the Coin-A-Wash and the A&W Rootbeer stand, because there was booze. There is a rule against booze on campus.
The founder and director wasn't a preacher's wife. He was a cigar-eating young English instructor named E. W. Johnson. In the conference brochure he claimed to have been a secondhand clothing salesman, a construction worker and a professional gambler. He is also a novelist and a writer of textbooks, and the only teacher at Western Illinois who has published a book. Johnson was sad at the party because he had sent out thousands of brochures and had advertised lavishly in Writer's Digest and Saturday Review and so on, and yet only 19 students had come. They were sitting around the room, rolling their eyes moonily, waiting for new friendships to begin.
"I can't understand it," he said above the Muzak and the sounds of drag races out on Route 136. "We have as good a staff as any conference in the country."
And the staff really was at least fair to middling. There was myself, described in the brochure as "the foremost black humorist in American fiction"; and there was Richard Yates, "perhaps the greatest living short story writer in America;" and there was John Clellon Holmes "the official biographer of the Beat Generation, who has recently completed a novel entitled ëPerfect Fools,' which is written from a ëwhite humor' point of view"; and there was Frederic Will, "one of the most versatile writers in America, having published extensively (eighteen books) in the fields of poetry, non-fiction and translation."
Johnson confessed that it had appeared for a while that only five students were coming, and he confessed too, that he had never been to a writers' conference before.
I asked him how he had come to found such a thing, and he said that he sure wasn't doing it for money. All he was getting as director was his regular instructor's pay. He honestly wanted to help writers.
The party died at midnight. Everybody had gone home by then except Johnson and a couple of staff members and a girl who had been recently divorced--from an Arab, she said. We were sitting around the swimming pool, breathing chlorine and carbon monoxide.
"You know why more people didn't come?" said the girl.
"Nope," said Jonson.
"Because ëMacomb, Illinois' sounds like such a hell-hole, and because "Western Illinois University' sounds like such a jerkwater school," she explained.
The Town isn't all that bad, I guess, and the University is handsome and booming. But there isn't any water there, and there aren't any mountains there, and there is no grand hotel. If you don't have water or mountains, and you want to fond a writer's conference, you had better have a grand hotel. Bloomington, Ind., is a hell-hole, God knows, but the Indiana University Writers' Conference takes place in the student union, which contains four restaurants, a pool hall, a barber shop, a bowling alley and a bookstore, and grown- ups can drink booze in their rooms.
I taught at Indiana's conference one summer. They're starring Jerome Weidman and Gerold Frank this year. The most touching thing that happened to me there was when Harry Mark Petrakis and I admitted to each other that we had never been published in The New Yorker, and probably never would be because we lacked that certain something. We thought it might be an ethnic thing, that they didn't like Greeks and Germans.
We have been brothers ever since.
We fours stars at Macomb had all taught at one time or another in the Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa. E. W. Johnson got his Master of Fine Arts degree there. I've quit after two years--not angrily, but feeling waterlogged. All the Workshop staffers were professional writers. Vance Bourjailly was the only one who ever got much writing done, probably because Iowa was his home. The rest of us were gypsies.
And one problem at Iowa, no problem at Macomb, was that the students were all very able writers. They were not committed to a silly week or two in the summertime. They were engaged in a two-year graduate program which was to end, ideally, with the completion of a novel of a short-story collection, or sometimes a play. They deserved help from their teachers, and there was time in which to give it to them.
"How did you help?" you ask.
Nothing is known about helping real writers to write better. I have discovered almost nothing about it during the past two years. I now make to my successor at Iowa a gift of the one rule that seemed to work for me: Leave real writers alone.
I haven't mentioned the poets in the Writers' Workshop because I don't know much about them. The poets talk all the time, like musicians, and this drives prose writers nuts. The poets are always between jobs, so to speak, and the prose writers are hung up on projects requiring months or years to complete.
The idea of a conference for prose writes is an absurdity. They don't confer, can't confer. It's all they can do to drag themselves past one another like great, wounded bears.
One thing I'm glad about: I got to see academic critics at Iowa. I had never seen academic critics before. They are felt to be tremendously creative people, and are paid like movie stars. I found that instructive.
When I saw my first academic critic, I said to a student, "Great God! Who was that?"
The student told me. Since I was so shaken, he asked me who I had thought the man was.
"The reincarnation of Beethoven," I said.
To return to the Macomb experiment one last time: I hope they get more people next year than came this year. If the conferences dies, it will be the first one that ever did. What they need to make things merrier is a sort of master of the revels, a graduate of some really great hotel school like Cornell University.
And they must stop telling staff members that they have to sign loyalty oaths or they won't get paid. Poor E. W. Johnson was humiliated when that happened in spite of all he tried to do to prevent it. A little touch like a loyalty oath can lead a visiting writer to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that his is employed by hicks.
Mr. Vonnegut is working on a new novel, "Slaughterhouse 5." A musical version of "Cat's Cradle," an earlier novel, will open on Broadway this year.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Academic Integrity
Academic Integrity
• Academic integrity at Furman is governed by the university's academic integrity policy (121.5). Students have the ultimate responsibility for understanding and adhering to university policy. They should therefore familiarize themselves thoroughly with the information on this web site, as well as with other university materials on this topic.
• Understanding what constitutes academic misconduct is essential for avoiding it. This is especially true of plagiarism. Check out the definitions of academic misconduct and tips for avoiding plagiarism on this web site. Ask for clarification from your instructor(s) if necessary. Do not automatically assume that what applies in one course applies in another. (Of course, some behaviors are always wrong, such as plagiarizing an assignment, fabricating data, or cheating on a test or quiz.)
• Furman students are not required to report suspected violations of academic integrity, but they are encouraged and empowered to do so by the policy.
• Disputed allegations of academic integrity are adjudicated by the Academic Discipline Committee (see 190.6). This committee consists of five faculty members and two students.
• The professor has the authority to determine the grade penalty for violations of academic integrity. The Academic Discipline Committee (ADC) has the authority to impose penalties for violations beyond the grade in the course, such as revocation of pass-fail status, suspension, and/or expulsion from the university. In addition, students can appeal a grade penalty to the ADC, which may choose to recommend a different penalty to the professor. The course instructor retains authority over the grade, however.
In short, Furman students should:
• Inform themselves about Furman policy and expectations through this web site and other available means;
• Abide by the university's academic integrity policies and encourage others to do the same;
• Ask for clarification from professors if necessary;
• Learn how to cite sources appropriately;
• Report suspected violations of the policy.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Course Rationale
Welcome to the Occupation
Paulo Freire (1993) establishes early in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual’s choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the prescriber’s consciousness” (pp. 28-29).
The course before you, your course, will be guided by some essential principles, beliefs, and research concerning the nature of learning and teaching along with the commitments I have to the dignity of each person’s humanity and to the sacredness of intellectual freedom within a democracy. The practices and expectations of this course are informed by many educators, writers, and researchers—many of whom are referenced at the end. But the guiding philosophies and theories of this course can be fairly represented as critical pedagogy, critical constructivism, and authentic assessment.
Now that I am in my third decade as a teacher, my classroom practices and expectations for students are all highly purposeful—although most of my practices and expectations are non-traditional and may create the perception that they are “informal.” For you, the student, this will be somewhat disorienting (a valuable state for learning) and some times frustrating. Since I recognize the unusual nature of my classes, I will offer here some clarity and some commitments as the teacher in this course.
In all of my courses, I practice “critical pedagogy.” This educational philosophy asks students to question and identify the balance of power in all situations—an act necessary to raise a your awareness of social justice. I also emphasize “critical constructivist” learning theory. Constructivism challenges students (with the guidance of the teacher) to forge their own understanding of various concepts by formulating and testing hypotheses, and by utilizing inductive, not just deductive, reasoning. A constructivist stance asks students to recognize and build upon their prior knowledge while facing their own assumptions and expectations as an avenue to deeper and more meaningful learning. My practices avoid traditional forms of assessment (selected-response tests), strive to ask students to create authentic representations of their learning, and require revision of that student work.
Some of the primary structures of this course include the following:
• I delay traditional grades on student work to encourage you to focus on learning instead of seeking an “A” and to discourage you from being “finishers” instead of engaged in assignments. At any point in the course, you can receive oral identification of on-going grades if you arrange an individual conference concerning your work. However, this course functions under the expectation that no student work is complete until the last day of the course; therefore, technically all students have no formal grade until the submission of the final portfolio. One of the primary goals of this course is to encourage you to move away from thinking and acting as a student and toward thinking and acting in authentic ways that manifest themselves in the world outside of school.
• I include individual conferences for all students at mid-term (and any time one is requested), based on a self-evaluation, a mid-course evaluation, and an identification of student concerns for the remainder of the course. You will receive a significant amount of oral feedback (“feedback” and “grades” are not the same, and I consider “grades” much less useful than feedback), but much of my feedback comes in the form of probing questions that require you to make informed decisions instead of seeking to fulfill a requirement established by me or some other authority. Your learning experience is not a game of “got you”; thus, you have no reason to distrust the process. I value and support student experimentation, along with the necessity of error and mistakes during those experiments. My classroom is not a place where you need to mask misunderstandings and mistakes. I do not equate learning with a student fulfilling clearly defined performances (see Freire’s commentary on prescription above), but I do equate learning with students creating their own parameters for their work and then presenting their work in sincere and faithful ways.
• I include portfolio assessment in my courses, requiring students to draft work throughout the course, to seek peer and professor feedback through conferences, and to compile at the end all of their assignments in a course with a reflection on that work; my final assessments are weighted for students and guided by expectations for those assignments, but those weights and expectations are tentative and offered for negotiation with each student. Ultimately, the final grade is calculated holistically and based on that cumulative portfolio. All major assignments in this course must be drafted in order to be eligible for a final grade of “A.” The drafting process must include at least two weeks of dedication to the assignment, student-solicited feedback from the professor, and peer feedback. Assignments must be submitted in final forms in the culminating portfolio, but documentation of the drafting process must also be submitted with the final products. Any major assignments that do not fulfill the expectation of drafting will not receive a grade higher than a “B.” Revision is a necessary aspect of completing academic work.
Welcome to the occupation. This is your class, a series of moments of your life—where you make your decisions and act in ways you choose. Freedom and choice, actually, are frightening things because with them come responsibility. We are often unaccustomed to freedom, choice, and responsibility, especially in the years we spend in school. So if you are nervous about being given the freedom to speak and the responsibility for making your own choices, that is to be expected. But I am here to help—not prescribe, not to judge. That too will make you a bit nervous. I am glad to have this opportunity in your life, and I will not take it lightly. I will be honoured if you choose not to take it lightly either.
References
Ayres, W. (2001). To teach: The journey of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Free Press.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
hooks, b. (1999). remembered rapture: the writer at work. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
———. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005a). Critical constructivism primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005b). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Perennial.
———. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The Truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best Practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Syllabus
Democracy and Public Education: Confronting the Text, Confronting the World (Fall 2008)
Instructor: Dr. P. L. Thomas
Phone: 294-3386 (office); 590-5458 (cell)
Class time: M, W, F 9:30-10:20
Room: HH
Office hours: by appointment, 101F Hipp Hall
Email: paul.thomas@furman.edu
Course Blog: http://democracyandeducation.blogspot.com/
Academic Integrity: http://www.furman.edu/integrity/InformationforStudents.htm
"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
REQUIRED TEXTS
Students must select one each of the following:
[ ] One major scholarly work on education. (See “Virtual Bookshelf: Scholarly Considerations” on course blog.)
[ ] One novel with education as central element. (See “Virtual Bookshelf: Education in Fiction” on course blog.)
And read as assigned:
[ ] All supplemental texts distributed in class or through course blog.
Students will need a reference source for writing assignments. You will be provided an electronic version of the following text:
Thomas, P. L. (unpublished). Conventional language: Academic and scholarly writing.
As referenced in the text above, students will find the online writing lab at Purdue University very helpful as a resource—The OWL at Purdue:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/
COURSE DESCRIPTION
From the letters and public writings of Thomas Jefferson to the debates among Governors, Presidents, and Superintendents of Education, public discourse in the United Stated never strays too far from, “Why universal public education in a democracy?” This course will explore the history and arguments about universal public education in the U.S. We will read and debate major works directly addressing education along with novels that dramatize the complexity of being a teacher. Some of the leading thinkers about education to be read include Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, John Dewey, Paulo Freire, bell hooks, and Maxine Greene.
FYW GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
• Enthusiasm for learning and reflection.
Students will read, write, discuss, reflect during class and throughout the semester—both as a fulfillment of the course requirements and by choice outside of class. The semester will be an opportunity to explore the nature of democracy and education along with how the two have and do interact in the U. S. and internationally.
• Critical consideration of established knowledge.
Student will read and research key schools of thought about education; further, they will focus on major works about education in order to share these important areas of the field of education with the class.
• Critical evaluation of preconceptions and assumptions.
Students will identify their own preconceptions about education and democracy. They will also begin to outline the assumptions that drive ideological tensions about education and democracy within the historical and contemporary debates about education.
• Understanding available and emerging sources of information and appreciating the importance of independent work and appropriate citation.
• Appreciation of the research process and of the creative expansion of information and understanding.
Students will draft and complete original essays and a final autobiographical collage. This original writing will reflect the students’ scholarship, including their skills at selecting and interpreting sources along with their ability to craft original written scholarship that conforms to the conventions of the genre (including appropriate documentation).
• Proficiency in expository and argumentative writing.
Students will draft original academic and scholarly compositions within a workshop format that requires multiple drafts and conferencing with peers and the professor.
ASSIGNMENTS
[ ] Students are expected t0 attend all class sessions, read all assigned texts, participate fully in class discussions, and contribute during writing workshop activities.
[ ] Students should begin and maintain a journal throughout the course. The writing journal can be either a hard-copy journal (purchased or created) or an electronic journal maintained on a computer. Entries should include dates. Students should establish and consider throughout the course their writing process and research process as part of the journal.
[ ] Students will complete a number of writing exercises throughout the course; they may be completed directly in the writing journal or added to the journal when submitted at the end of the course.
[ ] Students will compose and submit four original essays throughout the course (see Course Schedule); then, students will craft an autobiographical collage from those essays to submit as a culminating assignment (minimum 20 pages). Guidelines for essays/collage:
• Topics and genres are the choice of the writer, but students are expected to remain within the parameters of academic and scholarly writing and to consider questions, ideas, and topics related to the relationship between public education and democracy.
• Essays/collage must be drafted during workshop sessions, including sharing drafts with peers and the professor. All drafts must be collected and maintained throughout course to be submitted with all writing evidence at the end of the course.
• A minimum of two of the four essays (and the collage) must include primary and secondary sources referenced fully and appropriately in the original text. Students must comply with the requirements of MLA documentation.
[ ] Students submit all work in a final portfolio, including all work throughout the course.
Academic Integrity
• Academic integrity at Furman is governed by the university's academic integrity policy (121.5). Students have the ultimate responsibility for understanding and adhering to university policy. They should therefore familiarize themselves thoroughly with the information on this web site, as well as with other university materials on this topic.
• Understanding what constitutes academic misconduct is essential for avoiding it. This is especially true of plagiarism. Check out the definitions of academic misconduct and tips for avoiding plagiarism on this web site. Ask for clarification from your instructor(s) if necessary. Do not automatically assume that what applies in one course applies in another. (Of course, some behaviors are always wrong, such as plagiarizing an assignment, fabricating data, or cheating on a test or quiz.)
• Furman students are not required to report suspected violations of academic integrity, but they are encouraged and empowered to do so by the policy.
• Disputed allegations of academic integrity are adjudicated by the Academic Discipline Committee (see 190.6). This committee consists of five faculty members and two students.
• The professor has the authority to determine the grade penalty for violations of academic integrity. The Academic Discipline Committee (ADC) has the authority to impose penalties for violations beyond the grade in the course, such as revocation of pass-fail status, suspension, and/or expulsion from the university. In addition, students can appeal a grade penalty to the ADC, which may choose to recommend a different penalty to the professor. The course instructor retains authority over the grade, however.
In short, Furman students should:
• Inform themselves about Furman policy and expectations through this web site and other available means;
• Abide by the university's academic integrity policies and encourage others to do the same;
• Ask for clarification from professors if necessary;
• Learn how to cite sources appropriately;
• Report suspected violations of the policy.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Schedule FYW-EDU-01
W
8/27
• “A House of My Own,” “Eleven,” Sandra Cisneros
• Book introductions (novels and scholarly choices)
F
8/29
• What is good writing? (with student samples)
M
9/1
Labor Day Holiday
W
9/3
• Academic and Scholarly writing
• Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Mill
F
9/5
• LIBR—Sept 5—Information fluency
M
9/8
• Thomas Jefferson on Education and “The
American Scholar,” Ralph Waldo Emerson
• Workshop
W
9/10
E.1 drafting DUE
• Workshop
F
9/12
Book Club
M
9/15
• Workshop
W
9/17
E.1 First full sub DUE
• Workshop
F
9/19
Book Club
M
9/22
• Workshop
W
9/24
• LIBR—Sept 24—Information fluency
F
9/26
Book Club
M
9/29
• Workshop
W
10/1
E.2 drafting DUE
• Workshop
F
10/3
Fall Break Holiday
M
10/6
• Workshop
W
10/8
• Workshop
F
10/10
Book Club
M
10/13
• Workshop
W
10/15
E.2 First full sub DUE
• Workshop
F
10/17
Midterm
Book Club
M
10/20
• Workshop
W
10/22
• Workshop
F
10/24
Book Club
M
10/27
• Workshop
W
10/29
E.3 drafting DUE
• Workshop
F
10/31
Book Club
M
11/3
• Workshop
W
11/5
E.3 First full sub DUE
• Workshop
F
11/7
Book Club
M
11/10
• Workshop
W
11/12
• Workshop
F
11/14
Book Club
M
11/17
• Workshop
W
11/19
E.4 drafting DUE
F
11/21
[* No class Nov 21]
M
11/24
[* No class Nov 24]
E.4 First full sub DUE
W
11/26
Thanksgiving Holiday
F
11/28
Thanksgiving Holiday
M
12/1
Autobiographical Collage drafting
W
12/3
Autobiographical Collage drafting
F
12/5
Autobiographical Collage drafting
M
12/8
Autobiographical Collage drafting
Exam
Final Portfolio/ Autobiographical Collage
DUE (20 pp. min.)