When I read the assigned essay I felt it was necessary to define some keywords that I did not completely understand. I thought it would be best to start with the title, “Engaged Pedagogy” written by Bell Hooks. Engaged was a familiar word in my in my vocabulary but I decided to look in up anyway. Engaged was defined as; take part in or participate or to give attention to something. Pedagogy was a word I had never seen written before. It was defined as: the art, science, or profession of teaching; especially education (Webster).These definitions helped clarify Hooks purpose in here writing.
After reading “Engaged Pedagogy” by Bell Hooks the second time I felt more “engaged” in her writing. I felt drawn to her first opening paragraph which I feel meant a lot to me personally, mainly because it is a philosophy of teaching I always had felt strongly about. Bell proclaims her philosophy by stating, “to educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn. That learning process comes easiest to those of us who teach who also believe that there is an aspect of our vocation that is sacred; who believe that our work is not merely to share information but to share information in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students”.(68)This statement strongly states that teachers should “engage” in every student and provide the necessary environment for engagement to happen. I feel she pushes the envelope throughout this chapter and challenges them to expand to their boundaries, boundaries that go beyond just knowledge, seeking the relationship between our well- being and empower us to grow by this process. She suggests teachers dispose the “assembly-line approach to learning”.(68) Hooks states, “Such teachers approach students with the will and desire to respond to our unique well beings, even if the situation does not allow the full emergence of a relationship based on mutual recognition. Yet the possibilities of such recognition is always present”.(68)
The possibilities are always present, but not always sought after. It takes more of a demand to recognize and react to the well being of the student. Hook strongly proclaims, “that teachers must be actively committed to the process of self-actualization that promotes their own well being if they are to teaching a manner that empowers students”.(68)
I feel” engaged pedagogy” is a practice that has gained a lot of positive response over the years and has seen some great results. With its positive results there still has been some negative resistance, resistance that still lies in the systemic politicized practices of teaching and learning. Halting what Hooks proclaims at the end of her essay,” Professors who embrace the challenge of self-actuation will be better able to create pedagogical practices that engage students, providing them with ways of knowing that enhance their capacity to live fully and deeply”.(73)It is up to the educational body to engage in this practice of freedom in a way of teaching that anyone can learn.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Re-Inventing the University
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
After reading, “Inventing the Universe” by David Bartholomae for the second time,I still focused in on his use of the term commonplace. I feel when you talk about academic writing, “commonplace” motivates us to activate academic discourse, with or without a purpose.I felt at first this concept brought on a positive twist in academic writing. After reading this essay again,Bartholomae points out that the twist we are feeling comes from a double edge sword.
When we start to think,” how shall I write this” we tend to go towards a safe mode or commonplace. We become translators by just repeating or quoting what we have read our other people have thought. This is where I feel it is safer for the writer to stay on common ground and follow the rules, rules that have been embedded in his or her writing since they picked up a pen. Bartholomae states,” that kind of writing is writing that comes through you, not from you”. Are we writing papers truly from us, or are these papers channeled through us from a stamped outline of previous writers without any creative substance or truth. He points out in his first epigram as I interpreted, education may as well be the only righteous or moralistic path to take and it is the only we can gain access to discourse in our society.Rules that we must follow.Does it permit or does it prevent us from writing from within.
Is "commonplace" the appropriate type of discourse that is all too common in writing? It is a comfortable place to go for most academic writers. It is not always the right place to go when it come to writing to anyone. It covers many aspects of writing and touch’s each conflict whether at home our school. It’s safe. Most people will take the safe route when it comes to anything and writing is no different. Only the few that analyze each situation and speak in a voice that relates to each and every situation in one that writes from within.
I felt Bartholomae portrayed this through out his writing. In order to have the best of both worlds and progressively point writing in a positive direction,we must move towards a more specialized discourse, perhaps not only satisfying the common codes of the university, but satisfying ones self by putting himself in a position of privilege,working towards a code of his own. Which is the reason why Bartholomae liked the last essay better because the writer showed his versatility by his complete awareness of the codes that operate within a discourse. By doing this the writer can be effective on getting a strong message across by satisfying the scholars without losing ones identity our creativity.
After reading, “Inventing the Universe” by David Bartholomae for the second time,I still focused in on his use of the term commonplace. I feel when you talk about academic writing, “commonplace” motivates us to activate academic discourse, with or without a purpose.I felt at first this concept brought on a positive twist in academic writing. After reading this essay again,Bartholomae points out that the twist we are feeling comes from a double edge sword.
When we start to think,” how shall I write this” we tend to go towards a safe mode or commonplace. We become translators by just repeating or quoting what we have read our other people have thought. This is where I feel it is safer for the writer to stay on common ground and follow the rules, rules that have been embedded in his or her writing since they picked up a pen. Bartholomae states,” that kind of writing is writing that comes through you, not from you”. Are we writing papers truly from us, or are these papers channeled through us from a stamped outline of previous writers without any creative substance or truth. He points out in his first epigram as I interpreted, education may as well be the only righteous or moralistic path to take and it is the only we can gain access to discourse in our society.Rules that we must follow.Does it permit or does it prevent us from writing from within.
Is "commonplace" the appropriate type of discourse that is all too common in writing? It is a comfortable place to go for most academic writers. It is not always the right place to go when it come to writing to anyone. It covers many aspects of writing and touch’s each conflict whether at home our school. It’s safe. Most people will take the safe route when it comes to anything and writing is no different. Only the few that analyze each situation and speak in a voice that relates to each and every situation in one that writes from within.
I felt Bartholomae portrayed this through out his writing. In order to have the best of both worlds and progressively point writing in a positive direction,we must move towards a more specialized discourse, perhaps not only satisfying the common codes of the university, but satisfying ones self by putting himself in a position of privilege,working towards a code of his own. Which is the reason why Bartholomae liked the last essay better because the writer showed his versatility by his complete awareness of the codes that operate within a discourse. By doing this the writer can be effective on getting a strong message across by satisfying the scholars without losing ones identity our creativity.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Bullshit: Take it or Leave it
After reading " A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing I acually was sitting in front of my laptop for about fifteen minute looking at my notes trying to figure out how I can bullshit my way to my response to this essay. Ironically, this last staement was true from my heart, or was it. This is were I feel this subject becomes such a gray area.
There is nothing cut and dry, black or white when it comes to bullshit. It can be wrong or right, it can be bad or good, it can be words of inspiration or words of deflation. It can end up in books, or in the garbage. It seems it is up to the discretion of the reader to decide what he or she wants to do with it.
How and why bullshit has made its way into academic writing is an interesting phenominon. I feel the first time in the history of man kind someone wrote something down, he or she embelish what they were trying to say.( Embelish is a nice bullshit word)
Writing has alway been an entertaining way to comunicate in a fictional, non fictional, persuasive, or technical way. In some degree writing has always contained bullshit. As writers I dont think it started out as unintentional, but once they realized it entertainment value. bullshit just took off. Even at the cademic level it gets us A's. The more creative and imaginative one writer gets the more bullshit tends to fly.
I don't look at Bullshit being a negative aspect in writing. It definitely adds entertanment value. What we write alway reflects the perception of the reader. It is up to us the reader to decide, take what is written with us and use it, or flush it down the toilet
There is nothing cut and dry, black or white when it comes to bullshit. It can be wrong or right, it can be bad or good, it can be words of inspiration or words of deflation. It can end up in books, or in the garbage. It seems it is up to the discretion of the reader to decide what he or she wants to do with it.
How and why bullshit has made its way into academic writing is an interesting phenominon. I feel the first time in the history of man kind someone wrote something down, he or she embelish what they were trying to say.( Embelish is a nice bullshit word)
Writing has alway been an entertaining way to comunicate in a fictional, non fictional, persuasive, or technical way. In some degree writing has always contained bullshit. As writers I dont think it started out as unintentional, but once they realized it entertainment value. bullshit just took off. Even at the cademic level it gets us A's. The more creative and imaginative one writer gets the more bullshit tends to fly.
I don't look at Bullshit being a negative aspect in writing. It definitely adds entertanment value. What we write alway reflects the perception of the reader. It is up to us the reader to decide, take what is written with us and use it, or flush it down the toilet
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)