On methods

I subscribe to a pretty straight-forward, uncomplicated pedagogy which you could call “graduate school,” “collaborative,” “communal,” i.e. basically consisting of just two components: material and discussion. You dive headfirst into it and hope you can swim. Obviously, the teacher has strapped on a vest. Starting with a concise, shrewd opening question is a good way to focus attention to a particularly tension-filled, or essential part of the material, which then typically, hopefully, catapults discussion into a life of its own, soon heading in a direction determined by participant interests, dependent upon the material and the guiding presence of the teacher. I consider this approach justifiably ennobled by time since Socrates sensed the Arcadian breeze on his forehead with Plato sitting giggling on the first bench.

Another element in my classes is the student presentation. This puts the student in charge of the material with inputs and inquiries from the rest of us. Obviously, group work – as described by Bean (cpt. 9, e.g., p.167) is a valuable variant in conjunction with the right material and the right instructions. Unfortunately, students are often too concerned with profiling themselves for final grade, resume, and future career purposes, for this method to reach its full potential. Our American cultural emphasis is not on co-operation either, so, you’re heading uphill. Many, probably most, other cultures, are stitched together differently. The pedagogy espoused by my childhood Danish educational system (as the message also was in society) had its emphasis, believe it or not, on communal concerns, so group work was an ingrained ingredient, teachers made sure to integrate individual brilliance into a communal purpose. (In all fairness, group work didn’t look terribly different from what I observe in my classes).

Let’s not leave out the lecture. It doesn’t have to last all fifty minutes. But if (excuse me: when) you really burn for something, you can generate a productive attention. Bean’s chapter 10 is useful in its discussion of many facets and applications of ‘lecture.’ I was surprised at his admittance in the Fishbowl-section on p. 178: “Pressure to perform well in the fishbowl motivates at-home study.” It’s my sense that our undergraduate system is more prone to hand-holding than pressuring. We sort of start already in the freshman year to wave a fond “farewell” to the anticipated alumni on the horizon. Cougar spirit and dressage is our glueful, cultural compensation for the protective shortcomings of society.

The weekly class reading-response blog I have incorporated in this course (and am using in my current UH 300) falls under Bean’s ‘exploratory writing’ (cpt. 6). I think it works very well as a way for students to structure their preparation, and also to think ‘freely’ in an exploratory fashion. It is important that the task is introduced as such: informal, so it doesn’t become a trial or ‘busywork’ (what an awful concept). For one thing, the blog registers the date and exact time of posting, so when a student consistently posts 2 minutes before (or past) the deadline, with, of course, ‘light’ comments, it is pretty telling – as opposed to a 3-paragraph, sophisticated posting three days in advance. I think, one must make a point of telling students that one does not look at the time factor but only gage the reasonable quality of the response; in order not to generate unnecessary stress and anxiety, associating the blog with some sort of public confession.

I have included my previous course write up on ‘learning’ below, please comment and suggest. Embedded in the formulation below is the intention to focus student attention to the necessity of being responsible for own education. I have outlined the ideal kind of preparation for class. Not that I expect of course, students to meticulously throw themselves into the task of procuring #s1-5 having sympathetically digested my gripping vision of pedagogy.


Learning

In my courses we engage in a collaborative learning model. Typically Honors courses are of a size and scope that lend themselves to such a format. It is a very simple and straight-forward pedagogy in respect of you and the individual, personal perspectives that you bring to class. It is a five-step system:

1. The material for a specific date is listed in the syllabus.
2. Please read the material beforehand carefully: write notes of questions and points you would like to make; do some research to expand on the text.
3. Come to class ready and willing to share your thoughts!
4. Go home and digest the class, think about whether or not your understanding of the material changed, was illuminated, expanded, or confirmed.
5. Revisit the issues again in the next or a later class when fitting; and/or discuss the issues with classmates and me outside of class.
   

In this manner our classroom will be full of impulses from different directions. Typically we come from all sorts of majors and backgrounds, while trying to establish an understanding of things that might be outside our normal or projected sphere of operations - and that is precisely the purpose of general education.

Is there any particular way to study the materials? And to engage them in class, pedagogically? I think there is great value in keeping it open, driven by, and occasioned by your questions. One could, formally, call it 'an inductive method': you read the stuff, have questions and reactions, and then together in class we try to pick things apart and reassemble them. We get answers to those questions; bring things together in comprehensive understanding. Beyond this, there are no formal tricks, nor do there need to be. You read the material and react to it: ask questions about any dimension of it! Then we generate knowledge and skills. It is as simple as that.

So, this is not a lecture-format providing you with all the routes, giving you the right answers which you then can retrace and confirm. Here, it is you taking on the text! And in class, your questions, and our discussion, will guide us to an understanding. I, of course, already have an understanding of the subject matters which I will bring to the table.

The Critical thinking guidelines and evaluating papers & essays can also be used as methods for how to ask questions to materials. Analyze, synthesize, contextualize, and form your opinion. The first times out we are probably going to miss a few pointers. But down the road, we will sharpen our tools.

Language, power, and the American West

Focus question for “Language and power”:
If ‘language’ is ‘power’ – examine how the relationship between language and power is established in your text. Compare this constitution to the relationship between the two elements in the other texts.

Taking a look at Hamlet we see a good example of the relationship between language and power in Claudius’s interaction with Hamlet (p. 420) beginning with “’Tis sweet and commendable…:”

Claudius first plays the ‘human experience’ card that youth should listen to the wisdom of elders: it is fine in “filial obligation … to do obsequious sorrow,” but get over it - persevering in grief is “unmanly.” Then he stabs at Hamlet’s self-esteem: “impious stubbornness,” “a heart unfortified,” “a mind impatient,” “unschool’d.” Then he threatens with heaven, nature, reason – and guilt-trips him: “the dead,” and finally a not so discrete threat that he, Hamlet, may end up like his father: “You are the most immediate to our throne,” insultingly he takes such words into his mouth as “dearest father,” “nobility of love … do I impart towards you.” And then, of cause, he finishes it off: “remain here … in … cheer and comfort” – because Hamlet is definitely next, he himself must suspect.

The power of language here lies in its ability to sophisticatedly render a threat on different psychological levels: kindness, reproach, guilt, irony. In a language-less world surely a power relationship between a Claudius and a Hamlet could exist and be sustained, but not with such communicative sophistication. That is what literary language can do, and sensitive readings reveal; we need no other justification for reading literature, and for making it an integral dimension of education.

Units exploring the following texts/images would deepen and contextualize the focus question:

• H. Ibsen: A Doll’s House (1879)
  Notice how Ibsen in the opening scene establishes Nora’s subservient role in the marriage, and socially, through Helmer’s nicknames of her, “chirping lark” etc.
  
• M. Duchamp: Fountain (1917)
  His display of a urinal entitled “Fountain” shook up the art world as it forced upon it the notion that art might be more than a matter for museums. A visual kind of language and power.
  
• P. Picasso: Guernica (1937)
  Likewise, Picasso’s painting in response to the war crime: image as a language of disgust and revolt activating language in its appreciators.
  
• E. Spenser: The Faerie Queene (1590)
  Poetic language offering a dramatic, visually enticing experience.
  

Focus question for “Representing the American West”:
“The American West” – as an idea or concept directly or indirectly invoked in texts – signifies a cultural construction. Give examples of how such cultural construction takes place in your texts. E.g., make a list of what might be called “components of cultural construction,” and organize them in groups based on similarities and differences.

The Spirit of the Bear Walking is a tender story about purity or cleansing of mind, here awarded with a vision. Whenever a representative of one cultural hemisphere reconstructs another culture e.g. by retelling their myths, it is prudent to be cautious. E.g., which connotations do names and idioms have within their original context; which are produced in the particular form of the storytelling? Similarly, when Native American authors express themselves in short stories or novels – are they creating a 3rd culture?

Units on these topics could further explore cultural construction:

• Cowboy poetry
  Organize topics from a selection of poetry.
  
• Dances with Wolves (1990)
  How does the film portray Native Americans?
  
• Mormon history and religious writing
  Does the Mormon experience and description of ‘The West’ differ from non-Mormon depictions? If so, how?
  
• Contemporary Native American literature
  Analyze the text/s for dimensions of cultural construction and determine their difference or similarity to immigrant depictions.
  

Powerlessness of language
The section on “Language and power” (pgs. 397-502), comes to 105 pages, consisting largely of reprinted works of literature, a couple of questions to each piece of literature, very brief, general introductions of the authors, and three images. Thus, outside of the reprinted literature, perhaps 2-3 pages total are from Daniel Anderson’s own hand, very easy. (This is typical of the entire book’s 947 pages). Of this, both the questions and the introductions are entirely average, displaying a less sophisticated spectrum of ideas than if you simply googled the matters. The magnitude of the topic of this section (even if we separate it into its components: language, power) is so daunting, so complex, so fundamental, with such a rich, intellectual history behind it, that it is only fair to expect – to be more than cooperatively diplomatic – slightly more guidance from someone who dares to raise the issue in a textbook, than what we get in the 54 words + 3 words title on p. 397. “Language shapes us,” “language influences our thinking,” “words… have a direct impact on human lives,” “this power of the word and its implications for the decisions we make.” These platitudes force us to seek enlightenment elsewhere.

The book as a whole is a celebration of the powerlessness of language. Not that there isn’t plenty of language; but jump-skipping from one literary effort to another, never anchoring one’s feet firmly into a literary effort, but subjugating ideas and art to loosely sketched ‘lenses,’ makes WMLA a sort of educational equivalent to the QVC-channel. Hence, as an anthology it spreads its arms too widely; as an instrumental treatise on pedagogy, it doesn’t dig deep enough.

“Of the paintings… which do you prefer? Why?” (p. 891) – Apart from the readymade skill-level needed in order to pose such a question, it is unfortunate in signifying the ultimate capitulation of ideas. It also seems, the overarching purpose of WMLA is not to complicate its users’ sense of self-esteem.

I hope these comments testify to the fact, that what we are doing in a class such as this, belongs to the most laudable and important undertakings possible in educational training.