Friday, May 07, 2004
Research Essay.
What's the deal with research essays. It seems like students, when writing a research essay, slide into this different mode, using a different writing process.
When I sit down to write about writing research essays, I sit down and write. But when I look around my classroom, I see students sorting through articles, re-reading notes, and making outlines instead of WRITING. Is the researched essay that much different? From my perspective, no.
If I'm going to write a researched essay, I read and learn, learn and read, and then Isit down to write out my thoughts, to show the evolution of the idea within my own mind. I didn't complete any research, but one of the essay topics I came up with when my students were doing the same was Sweden. I had a question about Sweden. I know Sweden is a social democracy, and I also know that Sweden leads the developed world in a whole slew of categories -- social, economic, and cultural -- and I wanted to know why. So, if I was to begin a paper, I'd do the research, and then start writing:
Last week, I was listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation. Each day, as I leave work at 2pm, I turn on 90.7 and hear Neil Cohen's familiar voice. On this particular program, Neil was talking about responsibility, and taking or shirking and where and when to apply the principles of responsibility. A guest mentioned how Swedes have the lowest instance of drunk driving accidents and deaths in the world, and it's not because Swedes don't drink, because they do, a lot. Rather, it's because Swedes takes responsibility for their actions, and if they drink, they bike home, call a taxi, or hitch a ride with a friend. There is none of that macho "I ain't drunk" attitude that Americans have, as if being drunk is a sign of weakness, even though, when you go to a bar, Mardi Gras, or a club and begin ordering drinks, you're there to get "drunk". Maybe not puking, falling down, praying to porcelain Gods drunk, but drunk enough to step outside of yourself for a while, and this always means you are not fit to drive home. However, as Americans, you're weak if you can't drive; as a Swede, you don't drive. Maybe there's a social honesty in Sweden that is not prevalent in America, and that honesty dictates, "if you drink, you get drunk, duh!" But, in America, our adage dictates, "if you drink, and get drunk, you are weak and pathetic, duh!"
This program got me to thinking about Sweden in general. I also know, anecdotally, that Sweden has a very good system of social services. I know this because a friend of a friend has a friend, whom I have met, who is from Sweden. Her name is Tina. Tina is a single parent, and has been institutionalized a few times for seeming nervous breakdowns. In each case, she is taken care of, and her daughter is as well. Sweden has a system of nationalized health care, and enough social "netting" to insure that if Tina goes away to a hospital for a month, she doesn't lose her job, her house, or her daughter. Seems fair to me, and it also seems another symptom of a people and a country who are willing to take responsibility.
In America, we don't want to take responsibility for our weakness, and what might happen as a result is 4 dead children in a bathtub.
Now, there are a number of spots in the paragraphs above where research might provide substantiation for what I want to say about Sweden and Responsibility and the contrast with America. This is fine, and as I revise, I might try to work this material into the essay, but it is not the essay, my ideas still form the nucleus of the essay, and that's the way it should be.
It almost seems as if students feel beholden to that source material, like they have to use it, incorporate it, or the time they spent finding it was just wasted. Silliness. If you choose a topic or subject you are intersted in, and use research as a means of answering questions you have about your subject, then nothing's wasted because this material has taught you, or helped you to see your subjet more clearly.
It just seems like the research essay has become such a static and wooden form for students -- it's not even a form, it's much larger than that. It's like an entire research essay "culture" has formed in writing classes around the country, and this culture tells students that what's important about research essays is (a) the number of sources, (b) the works cited page and every period and page break in that works cited, (c) number of quotations, and (d) number of pages. All this stuff is so secondary to concerns about good writing -- it's like students can't imagine research writing as writing, only research writing as "researched" writing, not even writing that uses research.
Now, as a department, we've tried to combat this tendency for students to write static and formulaic research essays by changing textbooks and having students write ethnographies instead. I understand the intent, but I wonder if we don't lose out on a teachable moment if we don't try to re-teach the research essay entirely and try to help students identify the stereotypes they have about researched writing. I know, for a fact, that some of papers I receive will be typical HS stuff, but I also know that through class discussion, and how I have framed the entire research process for students, that a few students have realize the "real" hows and whys of research, and that this epxerience will become a valuable one for them -- they will have used research AND their own writing to learn something new, and expand their own thinking about some subject matter.
What's the deal with research essays. It seems like students, when writing a research essay, slide into this different mode, using a different writing process.
When I sit down to write about writing research essays, I sit down and write. But when I look around my classroom, I see students sorting through articles, re-reading notes, and making outlines instead of WRITING. Is the researched essay that much different? From my perspective, no.
If I'm going to write a researched essay, I read and learn, learn and read, and then Isit down to write out my thoughts, to show the evolution of the idea within my own mind. I didn't complete any research, but one of the essay topics I came up with when my students were doing the same was Sweden. I had a question about Sweden. I know Sweden is a social democracy, and I also know that Sweden leads the developed world in a whole slew of categories -- social, economic, and cultural -- and I wanted to know why. So, if I was to begin a paper, I'd do the research, and then start writing:
Last week, I was listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation. Each day, as I leave work at 2pm, I turn on 90.7 and hear Neil Cohen's familiar voice. On this particular program, Neil was talking about responsibility, and taking or shirking and where and when to apply the principles of responsibility. A guest mentioned how Swedes have the lowest instance of drunk driving accidents and deaths in the world, and it's not because Swedes don't drink, because they do, a lot. Rather, it's because Swedes takes responsibility for their actions, and if they drink, they bike home, call a taxi, or hitch a ride with a friend. There is none of that macho "I ain't drunk" attitude that Americans have, as if being drunk is a sign of weakness, even though, when you go to a bar, Mardi Gras, or a club and begin ordering drinks, you're there to get "drunk". Maybe not puking, falling down, praying to porcelain Gods drunk, but drunk enough to step outside of yourself for a while, and this always means you are not fit to drive home. However, as Americans, you're weak if you can't drive; as a Swede, you don't drive. Maybe there's a social honesty in Sweden that is not prevalent in America, and that honesty dictates, "if you drink, you get drunk, duh!" But, in America, our adage dictates, "if you drink, and get drunk, you are weak and pathetic, duh!"
This program got me to thinking about Sweden in general. I also know, anecdotally, that Sweden has a very good system of social services. I know this because a friend of a friend has a friend, whom I have met, who is from Sweden. Her name is Tina. Tina is a single parent, and has been institutionalized a few times for seeming nervous breakdowns. In each case, she is taken care of, and her daughter is as well. Sweden has a system of nationalized health care, and enough social "netting" to insure that if Tina goes away to a hospital for a month, she doesn't lose her job, her house, or her daughter. Seems fair to me, and it also seems another symptom of a people and a country who are willing to take responsibility.
In America, we don't want to take responsibility for our weakness, and what might happen as a result is 4 dead children in a bathtub.
Now, there are a number of spots in the paragraphs above where research might provide substantiation for what I want to say about Sweden and Responsibility and the contrast with America. This is fine, and as I revise, I might try to work this material into the essay, but it is not the essay, my ideas still form the nucleus of the essay, and that's the way it should be.
It almost seems as if students feel beholden to that source material, like they have to use it, incorporate it, or the time they spent finding it was just wasted. Silliness. If you choose a topic or subject you are intersted in, and use research as a means of answering questions you have about your subject, then nothing's wasted because this material has taught you, or helped you to see your subjet more clearly.
It just seems like the research essay has become such a static and wooden form for students -- it's not even a form, it's much larger than that. It's like an entire research essay "culture" has formed in writing classes around the country, and this culture tells students that what's important about research essays is (a) the number of sources, (b) the works cited page and every period and page break in that works cited, (c) number of quotations, and (d) number of pages. All this stuff is so secondary to concerns about good writing -- it's like students can't imagine research writing as writing, only research writing as "researched" writing, not even writing that uses research.
Now, as a department, we've tried to combat this tendency for students to write static and formulaic research essays by changing textbooks and having students write ethnographies instead. I understand the intent, but I wonder if we don't lose out on a teachable moment if we don't try to re-teach the research essay entirely and try to help students identify the stereotypes they have about researched writing. I know, for a fact, that some of papers I receive will be typical HS stuff, but I also know that through class discussion, and how I have framed the entire research process for students, that a few students have realize the "real" hows and whys of research, and that this epxerience will become a valuable one for them -- they will have used research AND their own writing to learn something new, and expand their own thinking about some subject matter.
It's early Friday morning. Yeah, it's the end of the week; Booo, it's early and I'm not certain I have anything to say. Let me list things to do today: (1) meeting @ 9am with Norma Irwin, 3rd Floor, Main Complex. (2) Meeting @ 11am with Winnie and Monica to finalize the changes to the master 102 syllabus. (3) Before this meeting, call Dale Krepel and have him fax over the insurance documents (4) meeting at 2pm, Faculty Development Funding Cmte.
Really, this is unusual. My routine is usually far more sedate and looks something like this: (1) get out of bed, shower, dress, head out door. (2) open office door, sit, stretch, check e-mail, stretch again. (3) after 8am class, head down to cafeteria, grab a bisquit, head back to office, eat and stretch. (4) teach 10 am & 1 pm. (5) Stretch.
What a life. This is the perfect life for me because I am very possessive of my time. I think I'd shrivel and die if I had to work 50 hours at a desk each week. I can do my work when I choose, after I stretch, or before a yawn and stretch. It's up to me, entirely. If I want, I can put off working unti llate evening, or I can be very diligent and do it right away in the morning.
I see this guy at the gym in the afternoon. He looks like Snoopy. I can't explain it, but from the first time I saw him, I thought of Snoopy. Maybe it's not that he actually looks like SNoopy, but rather that he gives the impression of "Snoopiness". Yes, I think that's it -- he has a Schultzian aura about him.
I wonder what people say of me? Maybe I have a "Crumbian" air about me.
Anyway, he looks wasted each day. He works in the city as a webmaster. I still remember when that monicker, "Webmaster," meant something new and unusual and cool. Nowadays, everyone's a "webmaster." I'm not even sure there is such a thing as a webmaster anymore, I think these people have transformed into something even more impressive like an IT Specialists or Information Systems Manager. Truly, I have no idea, but this guy works the web pages, or maybe the network of some bank downtown. He works from 6-2, M-F, and he fights traffic there and back.
Sure, when I talk to the guy, he smiles and laughs once in a while. We talk of sports, the weather, never working out, which is funny since we're in a gym, and once in a while, he grabs his gut out of the blue and says something like, "I gotta work this out." I just think though, this single guy, who should be on top of the world, looks like the life is being bled out of him. If he was a father and husband and worker bee, I might expect him to look wasted each day, but he's not, and he still looks wasted. Can too much SportsCenter alter a person so fundamentally? I think not. I'm pretty sure what the problem is: his job. His job -- the boss, the desk, the work, the repetition of daily commutes and Subway lunches -- is killing him. He works because he hopes it will make him feel better. He may even blame himself for how he feels - he's not eating right, getting enough exercise, or drinking the requisite three and a half liters of water a day. He needs to take his multivitamin. But, what it is, is work. We spend as much time working as we do sleeping. Or we spend the time sleeping so we have the energy to work. It's almost a one-to-one correlation: one hour of sleep = one hour of work. What a life.
My life is awesomely privileged.
This is lame. I don't even believe what I'm saying. It's bullshit. I do have a great job, but Snoopy may really enjoy his too - in fact, from the way he talks about it, I think he likes it, if not the job, then at the very least what the job says about him. He talks of his job using metaphors like the "old grindstone" and "the old ball and chain" -- cliches, no doubt, but I think he likes the fact that his life is cliched as such. I imagine he thinks of himself as a young urbanite professional -- working downtown, driving a semi-sporty little car, drinking beer and watching sports on weekends -- and he likes that, even if the work, or boss, or corporation suck the life out of him.
Really, this is unusual. My routine is usually far more sedate and looks something like this: (1) get out of bed, shower, dress, head out door. (2) open office door, sit, stretch, check e-mail, stretch again. (3) after 8am class, head down to cafeteria, grab a bisquit, head back to office, eat and stretch. (4) teach 10 am & 1 pm. (5) Stretch.
What a life. This is the perfect life for me because I am very possessive of my time. I think I'd shrivel and die if I had to work 50 hours at a desk each week. I can do my work when I choose, after I stretch, or before a yawn and stretch. It's up to me, entirely. If I want, I can put off working unti llate evening, or I can be very diligent and do it right away in the morning.
I see this guy at the gym in the afternoon. He looks like Snoopy. I can't explain it, but from the first time I saw him, I thought of Snoopy. Maybe it's not that he actually looks like SNoopy, but rather that he gives the impression of "Snoopiness". Yes, I think that's it -- he has a Schultzian aura about him.
I wonder what people say of me? Maybe I have a "Crumbian" air about me.
Anyway, he looks wasted each day. He works in the city as a webmaster. I still remember when that monicker, "Webmaster," meant something new and unusual and cool. Nowadays, everyone's a "webmaster." I'm not even sure there is such a thing as a webmaster anymore, I think these people have transformed into something even more impressive like an IT Specialists or Information Systems Manager. Truly, I have no idea, but this guy works the web pages, or maybe the network of some bank downtown. He works from 6-2, M-F, and he fights traffic there and back.
Sure, when I talk to the guy, he smiles and laughs once in a while. We talk of sports, the weather, never working out, which is funny since we're in a gym, and once in a while, he grabs his gut out of the blue and says something like, "I gotta work this out." I just think though, this single guy, who should be on top of the world, looks like the life is being bled out of him. If he was a father and husband and worker bee, I might expect him to look wasted each day, but he's not, and he still looks wasted. Can too much SportsCenter alter a person so fundamentally? I think not. I'm pretty sure what the problem is: his job. His job -- the boss, the desk, the work, the repetition of daily commutes and Subway lunches -- is killing him. He works because he hopes it will make him feel better. He may even blame himself for how he feels - he's not eating right, getting enough exercise, or drinking the requisite three and a half liters of water a day. He needs to take his multivitamin. But, what it is, is work. We spend as much time working as we do sleeping. Or we spend the time sleeping so we have the energy to work. It's almost a one-to-one correlation: one hour of sleep = one hour of work. What a life.
My life is awesomely privileged.
This is lame. I don't even believe what I'm saying. It's bullshit. I do have a great job, but Snoopy may really enjoy his too - in fact, from the way he talks about it, I think he likes it, if not the job, then at the very least what the job says about him. He talks of his job using metaphors like the "old grindstone" and "the old ball and chain" -- cliches, no doubt, but I think he likes the fact that his life is cliched as such. I imagine he thinks of himself as a young urbanite professional -- working downtown, driving a semi-sporty little car, drinking beer and watching sports on weekends -- and he likes that, even if the work, or boss, or corporation suck the life out of him.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Let's talk right away about KG, that is, Kevin Garnett. I'm a Minnesotan. I've lived in Texas, North Carolina, Missouri, and now Illinois, but I'm still Minnesotan, and I am soooo pleased that KG was awarded the NBA's MVP. He deserves it. I still remember when the Wolves signed KG, right out of high school in South Carolina, for 98,000,000. Nowadays, this isn't remarkable in and of itself, but at the time, in 1996, it was. The T'Wolves were an upstart organization and placing lots of faith in this kid from a small town in SC.
None of this, however, is what's remarkable about KG. What's amazing about this young man is his priorities, his maturity, his wisdom, and his grace. In responding to the MVP award, Garnett was very clear in including his team and the Wolves organization in his individual success. On Sportscenter, Garnett said that the individual awards are minor because basketball is a team sport, and his goal is to win the NBA title, with the Wolves, as a team.
On the court, the man is just as unselfish, almost to a fault. In game 1 against Sacramento, there were numerous occassions when Garnett drove the lane only to dish the ball off to another player; Garnett certainly would have drawn the foul, and probably scored, had he taken it upon himself to do so.
Now, generally, I'm fairly disgusted by athletes. These men (very few women) are paid enormous sums of money to entertain. Daycare workers are paid minuscule sums of money (if you can even call what they get paid a "sum") to care for our children. Not only do daycare workers provide for the basic necessities of each child, but they also instill in them values, in addition to being the real frontline in the whole educational process. I'd like to talk about teachers, but I'm afraid I will not have an unbiased view of them, I am one, and this may damage my credibility here, but teachers, who provide the real foundation for our democracy by teaching the requisite core of knowledge, and critical thinking skills to our populace, are underpaid, and undervalued -- teachers have become "service-providers" rather than the professionals they really are. Can you imagine someone trying to "return" a failed lawsuit to a lawyer? No, it's unimaginable, but students believe if they don't EARN the grade they believe they deserve, they can return it, or if not return it, cry foul on the part of the teacher. Silly.
However, Kevin Garnett is a man, who happens to an athlete, who deserves our respect and admiration. Yes, this man has extraordinary physical gifts, but this man also has a set of core values that all of us might emulate. This man, who also happens to a basketball player, stands for humility, cooperation, passion and hard work. This man is the American Dream - a hard worker rewarded for his skills and contributions to those around him.
None of this, however, is what's remarkable about KG. What's amazing about this young man is his priorities, his maturity, his wisdom, and his grace. In responding to the MVP award, Garnett was very clear in including his team and the Wolves organization in his individual success. On Sportscenter, Garnett said that the individual awards are minor because basketball is a team sport, and his goal is to win the NBA title, with the Wolves, as a team.
On the court, the man is just as unselfish, almost to a fault. In game 1 against Sacramento, there were numerous occassions when Garnett drove the lane only to dish the ball off to another player; Garnett certainly would have drawn the foul, and probably scored, had he taken it upon himself to do so.
Now, generally, I'm fairly disgusted by athletes. These men (very few women) are paid enormous sums of money to entertain. Daycare workers are paid minuscule sums of money (if you can even call what they get paid a "sum") to care for our children. Not only do daycare workers provide for the basic necessities of each child, but they also instill in them values, in addition to being the real frontline in the whole educational process. I'd like to talk about teachers, but I'm afraid I will not have an unbiased view of them, I am one, and this may damage my credibility here, but teachers, who provide the real foundation for our democracy by teaching the requisite core of knowledge, and critical thinking skills to our populace, are underpaid, and undervalued -- teachers have become "service-providers" rather than the professionals they really are. Can you imagine someone trying to "return" a failed lawsuit to a lawyer? No, it's unimaginable, but students believe if they don't EARN the grade they believe they deserve, they can return it, or if not return it, cry foul on the part of the teacher. Silly.
However, Kevin Garnett is a man, who happens to an athlete, who deserves our respect and admiration. Yes, this man has extraordinary physical gifts, but this man also has a set of core values that all of us might emulate. This man, who also happens to a basketball player, stands for humility, cooperation, passion and hard work. This man is the American Dream - a hard worker rewarded for his skills and contributions to those around him.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
It's been a while. Sorry.
We're nearing the end of the semester: one week of regularly scheduled classes remain.
I was listening to Talk of the Nation yesterday and they did a segment on grade inflation. Across the board, at colleges and universities across the country, GPA's have steadily risen since the late 60's. Understandably, in the 60's, grades rose because of the kindness of professors who wanted to help those who were enrolled in college to stay out of the draft, out of the draft. In the mid-80's, grades began to rise again. Stuart Rojstaczer, a Duke University professor who crunched the numbers attributes this rise, anecdotally, to a rise in consumerism. That is, students were paying increasing amounts of money for college credits, and they argued and pleaded for the best possible "return" on their dollar, and the nation's professors relented and gave them what they wanted.
The problem with this phenomenon is that education is NOT a commodity. Education is a process. Education is the process of training oneself to think critically, socially, and globally, and if a student fails to meet any of the intended goals, then it is their fault, and that "customer service" desk lies solely within their own home, not at the university's door. It's like building your own house. If you're walls don't square, and the windows aren't flush, you can't return the lumber and windows to Lowes and Wilke and demand a refund. When you get educated, you are building your own intellectual house, and the results of that house are directly related to the amount of earnest effort you put forth with its construction.
As a teacher, with good students, I know I have very little impact on them. This isn't depressing or sad or a statement of my own ineffectiveness, but, rather, a compliment to them, the good students. These students will learn no matter, and sometimes, in spite, of what I do. These students will excel under any circumstances because they are intrinsically motivated to do so. They learn because they want to learn, they choose to learn.
The best I can hope to do is draw some of the middling students into the fold and excite them about the prospect of their own learning, and make them take ownership of their own education. And, I suppose, each semester they are a few of the middling students who are energized because of some comment or confidence I might provide to them.
With me, it wasn't a teacher at all who excited me about the prospect of learning, but, rather, a friend, who has since become a close friend -- Gerry Niehus. I didn't meet Gerry until graduate school. I was intrigued by Gerry because of all the questions he asked: of me, of our professors, of our colleagues, of books. I realized that Gerry was asking questions because he was legitimately searching for answers. Gerry taught me to question. I think I had the questions before, but I never verbalized them and sort of hoped they would be answered in passing. Gerry took control and ownership of his own learning through the questions he asked. This was a sort of epiphany for me. At first, I began to ask Gerry questions, and then my queries expanded to colleagues, teachers, and eventually books. This was a pivotal moment in my development as a learner, and it had little to do with teachers.
We're nearing the end of the semester: one week of regularly scheduled classes remain.
I was listening to Talk of the Nation yesterday and they did a segment on grade inflation. Across the board, at colleges and universities across the country, GPA's have steadily risen since the late 60's. Understandably, in the 60's, grades rose because of the kindness of professors who wanted to help those who were enrolled in college to stay out of the draft, out of the draft. In the mid-80's, grades began to rise again. Stuart Rojstaczer, a Duke University professor who crunched the numbers attributes this rise, anecdotally, to a rise in consumerism. That is, students were paying increasing amounts of money for college credits, and they argued and pleaded for the best possible "return" on their dollar, and the nation's professors relented and gave them what they wanted.
The problem with this phenomenon is that education is NOT a commodity. Education is a process. Education is the process of training oneself to think critically, socially, and globally, and if a student fails to meet any of the intended goals, then it is their fault, and that "customer service" desk lies solely within their own home, not at the university's door. It's like building your own house. If you're walls don't square, and the windows aren't flush, you can't return the lumber and windows to Lowes and Wilke and demand a refund. When you get educated, you are building your own intellectual house, and the results of that house are directly related to the amount of earnest effort you put forth with its construction.
As a teacher, with good students, I know I have very little impact on them. This isn't depressing or sad or a statement of my own ineffectiveness, but, rather, a compliment to them, the good students. These students will learn no matter, and sometimes, in spite, of what I do. These students will excel under any circumstances because they are intrinsically motivated to do so. They learn because they want to learn, they choose to learn.
The best I can hope to do is draw some of the middling students into the fold and excite them about the prospect of their own learning, and make them take ownership of their own education. And, I suppose, each semester they are a few of the middling students who are energized because of some comment or confidence I might provide to them.
With me, it wasn't a teacher at all who excited me about the prospect of learning, but, rather, a friend, who has since become a close friend -- Gerry Niehus. I didn't meet Gerry until graduate school. I was intrigued by Gerry because of all the questions he asked: of me, of our professors, of our colleagues, of books. I realized that Gerry was asking questions because he was legitimately searching for answers. Gerry taught me to question. I think I had the questions before, but I never verbalized them and sort of hoped they would be answered in passing. Gerry took control and ownership of his own learning through the questions he asked. This was a sort of epiphany for me. At first, I began to ask Gerry questions, and then my queries expanded to colleagues, teachers, and eventually books. This was a pivotal moment in my development as a learner, and it had little to do with teachers.
