Final Reflection on Composition

Composition by definition is: the art of putting words and sentences together in accordance with the rules of grammar and rhetoric. That to me is what composition is – an art. Composition is the art of putting words together to engage the reader and persuade them to take your side on a given topic. In this class, I have learned one of the ways to do this successfully is to write in a way that appeals to the reader’s logos, ethos or pathos. These words were not new to me, but until I took this class, I had never understood the meaning behind them. They play a huge role when writing a persuasive paper. The Toulmin argument, however, was something new I learned this semester. This will make me a better writer because it gives me a great guide to follow to ensure that my argument is well established and backed up with evidence to support it.

I find it interesting to view language as that which separates us from becoming cannibals. The Bygott article posed the question “The implication was obvious and, for many, terrifying. If chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, carry the genetic code for cannibalism, surely humans must too?” Terrifying indeed! While it is true that humans are, by nature, selfish and all about self-preservation, I will never accept the idea that we are all capable of eating another human being. In the reading by James Miles refers to language as being a “double-edged sword” when he writes, “It might be language that allows us to be loved, but language also causes grief when that love is lost”. I have the quote highlighted because it really spoke to me. The one feeling in the world that can make us feel euphoric can in an instant bring you to your knees. Language is what makes us human.

This class has changed the way I thought about teaching Composition. Honestly, I had never really given it much thought; I just figured I would go into the classroom and teach it the way it has been taught for years. My students will thank Kevin for giving me some great examples of what not to do when teaching it in my classroom. First of all, I will do as Lanham suggests and make composition fun. I will teach the students there is more to an essay than just the making sure they get the five paragraph formula. I want them to have a positive feeling about writing; I want them to enjoy writing. I want them to know there is a purpose for writing. The students need to learn early in their writing education that the more expressive and thought out your choice of words is, the more interesting their paper will be and the more enjoyment they will get out of writing it. A.J.’s presentation on incorporating “juice” into your class to get them to find their voice was great. The quote from his paper, “If there’s no personality in your writing, it’s dead. If it’s not your personality, you’re dead. Bang, bang” is so true. Even Lanham suggests students find their voices in writing. No one wants to read or write a paper that bores them to tears!

Technology is another strategy I will incorporate into teaching composition in my classroom. I loved Kamerin’s presentation on letting the students make a PowerPoint to demonstrate their understanding of poetry. I cannot wait to try that with my students. I am actually hoping I can try it during my student teaching. Who knows, maybe I can teach my mentor teacher a new trick or two that she can use with her students in future years. I feel this class has prepared me for anything in the world of writing. Blogging is something I want to incorporate into my class as well. I feel blogging gives the student an outlet with which to write without having to necessarily having to worry about form. I want to give them a way to write that enhances their ability to communicate by letting their thoughts flow freely from their brains to their fingertips and on to the screen. I found myself writing whatever came to my mind in our blogs this semester. I know we usually have a topic to discuss, but I find it easier to discuss something if I am not given any strict instruction as to how I compose it.

This class has given me tools I will definitely use in my classroom as I begin my teraching journey. I have enjoyed this class.

Reflections on this class...

Well... hmm. Obviously just the name of the course, Issues in Composition, made me a bit apprehensive about the class. At this point in my academic career I was not looking forward to yet another class that was going to require massive amounts of writing – and then bam! Cannibalism... that topic in itself achieved a great task... getting me interested in what the class was going to have to offer: something other than – what can sometimes be described as – the mundane task of essay after essay. Nice hook, Kevin! That was a very interesting couple of days of discussion.

Our discussions on rhetoric were very insightful as well. It was eye opening to say the least to know that everyday in our day to day lives we are trying to persuade others. Its funny, last night I was sitting outside on my porch and I heard the little girl next door begging her dad to let her stay outside until 8:30. She was using bargaining (please, Daddy, I will clean my room and clean out the bottom of my closet) which, unbeknownst to her, she was using an appeal to her daddy’s pathos with her emotional appeal... yes, I actually had that thought run through my mind as she begged and plead with him! He, in return, appealed to her ethos by threatening to spank her if she said please again. Denied! She failed in her use of rhetoric to persuade dad to let her have her way. lol!

This course will benefit me as I begin to teach composition in the classroom. It has given me insight into ways to make writing a less daunting task for students... there are many cool ways to get students to realize that writing is not always about the 5 paragraph model – I know that structure is how I am most comfortable writing, but at the same time, I need to work on breaking out of that shell as well. Not only will my students grow as writers, but I will too. There is always room for growth and fine-tuning the skills we have as writers.

Lanham Schmanham?

Hmmm... what can I say about Lanham that I have not expressed in class... like Autumn said – idealistically, he has some really cool ideas... and I like I said, it would be very hard and unrealistic to think we can implement many of them. Standardized tests have made a teacher’s life increasing difficult. There are so many concepts that have to be covered in a limited amount of time. Reading aloud is definitely one of his better ideas. That would definitely appeal to the auditory learner – and that is one of the learning style we have to implement lessons around. In fact, there are several reading and pre-reading activities that are centered around that learning style specifically. I know I seem to have an intense dislike for the book, but that is not the case. Like I said in class, I just cannot be so anti-textbook! I am very much a believer of using it as a secondary source and finding outside sources as primary sources... but there are things in the textbooks that we have to cover or risk reprimand. I am hoping that I am going to be one of the lucky teachers that come in and are able to have a little say so in the choice of textbook... that would be great.

To sum it up: Lanham’s ideas are good just difficult to implement. =)

MOOOOOOOOOOO

Hmm… MOO was interesting to say the least! I thought it was ok… not exactly conducive to a coherent class discussion, but fun nevertheless. It was something different. I have mixed feelings about it when it comes to using it in a high school classroom setting. While it encourages the use of technology, it still has a few problems. Take for instance the multi-tasking we discussed. From personal experience, and I am a “grown-up”, I tend to have several windows open at once when I am supposed to be doing homework. Most definitely I have my Facebook open and iTunes. I am capable of multi-tasking pretty well, but in a chat room based discussion, if I had attempted to multi-task I would have been even more lost in all the conversation that I was! I know we weren’t actually taking it seriously, but still, it was hard to keep up. Maybe with some modifications to the program it could possibly work. I am thinking that maybe there could be a program implemented that monitored who got to speak and when – sort of like being able to raise your hand in a real classroom. I also think, like Autumn mentioned, that if there was a way to cut everyone off from speaking while the teacher asked the question – perhaps even giving the students “think time” before they blurt out anything that pops into their heads would be beneficial. It scares me a little to think of all the possibilities that might one day lead to replacing me as a teacher with a computer! All this school just down the drain! Technology is advancing at lightening speed and there are probably a lot of jobs out there that are being replaced with robots… for example car manufactures. Inventing these robots is expensive, but I am sure in the long run it saves the company tons of money on benefits and salary for its employees! Anyway, to wrap this up – MOO was fun, but definitely not something I would want to do everyday! =)

Will that guy teach our future generation???? ^

Well obviously technology will take rhetorical education to all kinds of new heights. There are so many advances in what the internet and computers can do, it is amazing. After watching that video in class and again at home, that is when it really hit me – I am a huge part of a generation gap. As a teacher, I want to stay informed on the latest technologies. But really, is that possible? I never thought I would be thought of as obsolete some day… will teachers be replaced with computers? I am sure that is highly unlikely, but as my son and I sat watching the video, we were talking about that possibility. There are other jobs out there, though, that probably will be replaced with computers.

Anyway back to the questions at hand… yes I think I can make technology a part of my pedagogy. There are many schools that have laptops instead of textbooks. Wireless internet in the schools will make using the internet in lesson plans very easy. I know that there are still some students who do not have access to the internet in their homes, so we would have to do it all in class, but it still is a very useful tool. Web 2.0 seems pretty interesting, although I fail to see exactly how it differs from Web 1.0. The technology is a little more advanced, I guess. Look how much technology is used in this class. Everything we need to know for this class is posted online… an online syllabi rather than a paper one has its advantages. One click of the mouse and there it is. The internet and technology are very useful tools in any classroom. But there are dangers to technology too.

Students who misuse the internet can find themselves in a world of trouble. Doing assignments online makes cheating easier. Students are always going to find a way to abuse any privilege… well some of them. The filters used on school computers limit their access to anything too dangerous or inappropriate, thank goodness.

I look forward to implementing technology into my teaching on a regular basis.

“A philosopher is someone who takes a natural law and applies logic to the natural law and derives an idea from that logic. On the other pole, a rhetorician has an argument, applies the most effective logic, and compares it to a natural law to conclude one’s definition.” http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jimhinch/A%20Rhetorician's%20Art.pdf

I was googling the definition of rhetorician and this was one of the websites that popped up. I have been sitting here for a really long time trying to think… which one of the blogs I can talk about when I can’t really wrap my head around either topic. So I thought my best bet would be to turn to my good ‘ol friend Google.

Is it sad to think that all of our philosophers are turning into rhetoricians… when we all know that rhetoric’s main purpose is to persuade? It seems to me that the days of Plato and Aristotle sitting around, drinking a class of mead, looking at the stars and getting down to some deep, philosophical conversation are, unfortunately, long gone. Indeed that is a sad thing to me. I bet Plato was a deep dude and awesome to hang out with and just listen to all his ideas and theories. I bet he would have listened to Pink Floyd had he been of this time... but I digress...

Lanham’s theory will have a huge impact on the way composition is taught, as more and more technology is developed and information even more at our fingertips. In the article, it says for rhetoricians, every argument has a counter-argument. The use of the internet makes it so much easier for rhetoricians to go back and forth, debating over who is right in their argument, why they are right… and vice versa. The article also says, “A good rhetorician acts by compromising and correlating spontaneously in a debate in a public sphere of interaction with an audience.” My example of this: blogs. I may be way out in left field here, but it just seems to me that philosophers were the great thinkers and rhetoricians are nothing but megalomaniacs who are hell bent on proving themselves right and persuading their listener over to their side of the argument. I wonder if I am even making any sense. I know what I am trying to say, formulating the idea into a coherent blog… well that is a totally different story.

The artifact I have chosen to write my rhetorical analysis on is a shirt that I bought from Wal-Mart. I have not really began any of my writing as of yet. I am thinking of writing on the appeal to pathos and logos. I was shopping for clothes to wear during my observation days at Lubbock high school. We have to dress in “teacher clothes” and, of course, that means we need to look professional. I not only wanted to look professional, but stylish as well. As I was browsing through the shirts, I found one that had an extra descriptive tag on it. The words that caught my eye were “instantly slimming”. Wow! Who doesn’t want something that instantly slims you? Well of course that appealed to my pathos. I tried the shirt on and indeed – it was slimming and very flattering. The next thing that I was interested in was the price. Being a single mom, I cannot afford to pay designer prices for my clothes. The price was perfect, under 20 bucks. That particular aspect appealed to my logos – factual data and statistics. And finally, the last prerequisite was: color. Did the color flatter me? Did I have any pants that I would be able to mix and match it with? Yes! The color looked great, and it just so happened that I had 2 pairs of pants to mix and match it with… I am unsure about that one; it seems to appeal to my pathos and logos.

So far, that is about all I have for my analysis. I am sure if I sat down and made some kind of outline, I would have a good start – its just finding the time to do so.