Blog #6 + Reflection

Response to my Partner's Letter

Dear Jayme,

I think you have brought up a very good question. Here is my interpretation of that excerpt. I hope you find it useful.

I completely understand “the need to reform pedagogy, taking into account the rise of new technology.” I understand this need as some of the old ways of pedagogy are outdated and either ignore or disserve new technology. I take this as a calling for educators to readjust and improve current pedagogy to accommodate the times we live in and keep up with them in a sense. I also see it as a way to accommodate students better as time progresses.

I also understand that we should consider “the question of WAC and writers whose primary literacy is in languages other than English,” perhaps by allowing these writers to write in both their native language across the curriculum, in order to get a better grasp on the material, and in English, in order to practice their command on their new language. Perhaps they can either alternate between writing in the two languages or write two shorter responses, one in each language.

As for the part that confuses you, the last element that the text suggests we look more closely at, which is “politics, particularly [ ] as reflected in racism.” First, I would like to say that I agree with you when you say that it is “loaded.” I am not quite sure what the author meant by this. Perhaps they are suggesting that minorities have some unfair disadvantages when it comes to WAC.

You could be right when you suggest that she is trying to say that “literacy and [the] act of teaching in itself is much larger and [should] be looked at on a more social political level.” I definitely agree with you when you state “WAC and the communication of teachers across the board [are] important because [they] will change processes that held back the poor, women, and certain ethnicities in the past.” I’m not absolutely sure. I could be wrong about that. But I hope that helped, at least somewhat.

I also agree that communication across the board will encourage mental growth and that "all of us can use the tools at our disposal." To answer your question, I am not sure if “that will end hatred, dominance, and poor who are uneducated” either. It is actually very complicated. It may not end like that for some, because there will always be people that abuse their power. However, it might help others, because there will always be people who are more fortunate and would like to help those who are less fortunate and underprivileged. The world is very complex that way.

I think your second question concerning McCarthy's case study was yet another excellent question. I completely agree that “Dr. Forson should have broken down the assignment into assignments with series of drafts. Students could then use draft 1 to explore poetic terminology and use draft 2 to better develop thoughts and personal input.” I think that was an excellent suggestion on your part.

I also agree with your theory concerning Dave. I absolutely see where you are coming from when you say “Dave should have been given a chance to revise specifically what he was missing from his paper. In other words, if he was using theories incorrectly to support an opinion he should have been shown his mistake and given a chance to correct it. I think as teachers there is something to say about forgetting about grades and actually being concerned with students learning: reforming pedagogy.” I especially agree with the last sentence of your statement. As educators, we need to be primarily concerned with whether or not our students are actually learning and gaining from the assignments we assign, as opposed to worried about grades and or other less meaningful elements. As far as Doctor Forson's teaching method based on the case study and Dave's interpretation of the class, I see eye to eye with you in the sense that I also believe that Dave should have been given more support and that Dr. Forson should have been more flexible.

Hope you enjoyed our letter writing experience, see you in class on Tuesday night!

Sincerely,
Rachael



Reflection

I liked this assignment in the sense that we were able to see someone else’s perspective on the readings. I also agree with Jayme in the sense that these letters allowed us to think in ways we would not have otherwise thought in. I also really like the fact that it was easier to discuss overarching themes that appear in all of the readings, as opposed to isolated quotes. It was also nice to be able to compare and contrast readings. And perhaps the greatest part of the letter format is that you have the option of asking questions/ the open lines of communication. However, I do feel that there are some limitations to this type of blog. First, when responding to your partner’s letter, you are obligated to discuss the elements of the readings that interested/fascinated/confused that person, rather than the elements that interested/fascinated/confused you. Next, it is not simple to discuss readings that are not connected without breaking the flow of the letter in the process. Last, sometimes another person’s interpretation of the readings can confuse you further rather than help you understand better. Their interpretations may nurture your misconceptions or cause you to develop new misconceptions.

Overall, it was a good experience. I would try this format out with my future students. However, I would be sure to closely monitor the benefits and disadvantages and look for ways to constantly improve the format. I would likely give them a focus to write about for each letter. I see how this format can be useful, however I personally like the 2x Journals better for some reason.