Appleman
Chapter Four
Of Grave Diggers and Kings: Reading Literature Through the Marxist Lens, or, What's Class Got to Do with it?
After reading this chapter, and just now typing out the title of it, I have to agree with Todd, when he says, that the chapter is a somewhat disappointment. Michael makes an attempt to teach Marxist theory through Hamlet; however, it didn't work so well, and therefor, "What's Class Got to Do with it" wasn't really explained.
I feel that literary criticism is important to integrate in the classroom. It is a resent phenomonon that I wish I was inroduced to more while in high school. “At many colleges and universities, the inclusion of cultural and political lenses such as Marxism and feminism has become the rule rather than the exeption” (57), and I agree. This chapter made me consider reader response on a different level, because how can one truly understand Marxism if they can’t put themselves into the text?
So why teach Marxist theory? Well, I think that it presents a more richness and fulfillment to reading. Students now will have to consider “…political content of the text, the author, and the historical and sociocultural context of the work. … Where students as readers are situated culturally, politically, and personally in relation to the content of the text” (59).
The statement that “no book is genuinely free from political bias” is true, and it’s important for students to understand this pull of capitalism. As whole how your culture is socially constructed? A student considering this may gain a different perspective on the text, and consider things that they may never have before. It’s very modern. I’m excited to integrate new criticism in my classroom, and feel that they are important to understand and always consider.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
MCTE Conference
MCTE Conference
On Friday, October 5th, I had the privilege of attending my first of I hope many, MCTE Conferences. The keynote speaker was Kathleen Blake Yancey, someone who I have read and heard of for awhile. Her opening speech was one that gave encouragement for the rest of the conference, which I found disappointing. She started out by discussion literacy and what we feel literacy is. My colleagues and I came up with the three C’s; comprehension, confidence and creativity. This was a great way to get everyone talking and quit yawning. Her visuals were stimulating and very useful. She then had us discuss literacy in the 21st century, which includes technology and digital social networking.
This is huge to consider now. Myspace and Facebook are two huge networking programs that everyone I pretty much know have clicked onto. Hopefully within the next two years I will have a classroom of my own, and considering where we are now with technology and how it’s always growing, it is important to stay on top of these databases. This opening speech actually made me think about this class, English 4800, and how much technology we use in for it. It’s nice to have a class that keeps me up to date.
I then ventured to “Hanging on by your Fingernails until you Gain a Toehold: Advice for Future Teachers from New Teachers.” This session was a waste of my time; however, I saw the majority of my colleagues here, and it’s nice to know that us future educators have a support group. Everything that was discussed has been discussed to exhaustion in my Education classes. Having a supportive principal, good classroom and students, supportive parent’s, etc. This is all obvious. Also, the presenter wasn’t a new teacher, she just surveyed new teachers. During this session I thought to myself, “The people that are in this room are the ones that probably don’t need to be.”
I then headed for the LGTB Literature session. This session was also disappointing. The speakers did try; however, some guy kept standing up and talking about being supportive of the gay students in your class. I did receive an excellent list of LGTB novels.
The last session I went to was the one about poetry. Here, the speaker had excellent ideas about teaching poetry. Her ideas were very reader response oriented, which was interesting. She had us do activities which involved writing out own poems following the style and structure of other famous poems. It was interesting to see everyone getting into it, and made me have hope about teaching poetry using this method.
On Friday, October 5th, I had the privilege of attending my first of I hope many, MCTE Conferences. The keynote speaker was Kathleen Blake Yancey, someone who I have read and heard of for awhile. Her opening speech was one that gave encouragement for the rest of the conference, which I found disappointing. She started out by discussion literacy and what we feel literacy is. My colleagues and I came up with the three C’s; comprehension, confidence and creativity. This was a great way to get everyone talking and quit yawning. Her visuals were stimulating and very useful. She then had us discuss literacy in the 21st century, which includes technology and digital social networking.
This is huge to consider now. Myspace and Facebook are two huge networking programs that everyone I pretty much know have clicked onto. Hopefully within the next two years I will have a classroom of my own, and considering where we are now with technology and how it’s always growing, it is important to stay on top of these databases. This opening speech actually made me think about this class, English 4800, and how much technology we use in for it. It’s nice to have a class that keeps me up to date.
I then ventured to “Hanging on by your Fingernails until you Gain a Toehold: Advice for Future Teachers from New Teachers.” This session was a waste of my time; however, I saw the majority of my colleagues here, and it’s nice to know that us future educators have a support group. Everything that was discussed has been discussed to exhaustion in my Education classes. Having a supportive principal, good classroom and students, supportive parent’s, etc. This is all obvious. Also, the presenter wasn’t a new teacher, she just surveyed new teachers. During this session I thought to myself, “The people that are in this room are the ones that probably don’t need to be.”
I then headed for the LGTB Literature session. This session was also disappointing. The speakers did try; however, some guy kept standing up and talking about being supportive of the gay students in your class. I did receive an excellent list of LGTB novels.
The last session I went to was the one about poetry. Here, the speaker had excellent ideas about teaching poetry. Her ideas were very reader response oriented, which was interesting. She had us do activities which involved writing out own poems following the style and structure of other famous poems. It was interesting to see everyone getting into it, and made me have hope about teaching poetry using this method.
Appleman
Chapter Three
The Lens of Reader Response: The promis and Peril of Response-Based Pedagogy
Reader Response is a theory that I was very unfamiliar with. I have a hard time picturing myself using this theory in my classroom. I do feel that reader response is excellent when it comes to poetry because with poetry, yes, there is importance with true meaning, history, context, form and poet; however, I feel as though the poem is more yours. The poet wrote it for you to interpret how you wish, and digest whatever beautiful images and lines they produce. At the beginning of the chapter, Appleman suggests a fruitful way to teach reader centered response: “Teaching it as one of a variety of theoretical approaches rather than as the only possible approach” (26). This statement, after reading the chapter, stuck with me. What’s nice about this theory is that it does put the student at the center of the activity, and allows the student to create meaning and engage in text that, perhaps, wouldn’t be possible without it.
Personally, I can’t recall using reader response while being taught literature. I can recall using it for personal readings such as Catcher in the Rye and The Bell Jar. I’m curious if because of the way I have been instructed hindered my opinion on the theory. Anyways, I agree with Rachel that “…something limiting about that position, something that might trivialize the importance of the real differences that exist between the students’ world and the world of the text. … Is the purpose of studying literature only to clarify out own existence and underscore our unique personal attributes?” (28). Call me old fashioned, but I do think that style, author, and history are extremely important to note while reading literature. I feel that knowing this and considering these facts while reading makes a person more intelligent and well rounded, also gains an appreciation for history. Again, I can’t help but think this is just the English major in me.
I do recall reading To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men, The Hobbit, and The Great Gatsby in high school (Confessions of a True Believer.) I don’t remember any reader response, and I still gained a huge amount of respect for the writers and content. I was never taught different literary theories in high school though. After reading Reader Response and Native Son, I started to gain hope for this theory. I think that Martha has it right on on how to teach this theory by integrating others that are important to understand when it comes to literature.
Chapter Three
The Lens of Reader Response: The promis and Peril of Response-Based Pedagogy
Reader Response is a theory that I was very unfamiliar with. I have a hard time picturing myself using this theory in my classroom. I do feel that reader response is excellent when it comes to poetry because with poetry, yes, there is importance with true meaning, history, context, form and poet; however, I feel as though the poem is more yours. The poet wrote it for you to interpret how you wish, and digest whatever beautiful images and lines they produce. At the beginning of the chapter, Appleman suggests a fruitful way to teach reader centered response: “Teaching it as one of a variety of theoretical approaches rather than as the only possible approach” (26). This statement, after reading the chapter, stuck with me. What’s nice about this theory is that it does put the student at the center of the activity, and allows the student to create meaning and engage in text that, perhaps, wouldn’t be possible without it.
Personally, I can’t recall using reader response while being taught literature. I can recall using it for personal readings such as Catcher in the Rye and The Bell Jar. I’m curious if because of the way I have been instructed hindered my opinion on the theory. Anyways, I agree with Rachel that “…something limiting about that position, something that might trivialize the importance of the real differences that exist between the students’ world and the world of the text. … Is the purpose of studying literature only to clarify out own existence and underscore our unique personal attributes?” (28). Call me old fashioned, but I do think that style, author, and history are extremely important to note while reading literature. I feel that knowing this and considering these facts while reading makes a person more intelligent and well rounded, also gains an appreciation for history. Again, I can’t help but think this is just the English major in me.
I do recall reading To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men, The Hobbit, and The Great Gatsby in high school (Confessions of a True Believer.) I don’t remember any reader response, and I still gained a huge amount of respect for the writers and content. I was never taught different literary theories in high school though. After reading Reader Response and Native Son, I started to gain hope for this theory. I think that Martha has it right on on how to teach this theory by integrating others that are important to understand when it comes to literature.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Appleman Chapter Two
Chapter Two
Here, Appleman describes that all your students will have different perspectives from different works; however, all of them are just as important. Yes, some may be wayy off, but like I said earlier, It's a start!
I like the different perspectives Appleman puts us through. Starting with Rachel and playing devil's advocate. I remember very well a teacher I had that is similar to Rachel. The reason why I remember him is because he would do this soo effectively. Understanding that there is more than one outide issue is detrimental for all college bound students. I like the idea of taking the idea of plot and considering it in other characters perspectives.
Star Wars, can one think about a better way to introduce archetypes in the classroom? Probably not. It's neat to see fun and interesting ways to teach literary theories without being too didatic.
I feel for any of this to be successful, the students and the teacher need to achieve a relationship that is comfortable and willing to think outside the box. Allowing the students to open their minds and explore different interpretations is a huge part in a student's academic and maturing life.
Here, Appleman describes that all your students will have different perspectives from different works; however, all of them are just as important. Yes, some may be wayy off, but like I said earlier, It's a start!
I like the different perspectives Appleman puts us through. Starting with Rachel and playing devil's advocate. I remember very well a teacher I had that is similar to Rachel. The reason why I remember him is because he would do this soo effectively. Understanding that there is more than one outide issue is detrimental for all college bound students. I like the idea of taking the idea of plot and considering it in other characters perspectives.
Star Wars, can one think about a better way to introduce archetypes in the classroom? Probably not. It's neat to see fun and interesting ways to teach literary theories without being too didatic.
I feel for any of this to be successful, the students and the teacher need to achieve a relationship that is comfortable and willing to think outside the box. Allowing the students to open their minds and explore different interpretations is a huge part in a student's academic and maturing life.
Appleman Chapter One
Chapter One
It's interesting how Appleman automatically makes a connection of literary theory and new classroom ideas. I never knew that literary theory had a stigma of being arbitrary. I suppose us English enthusiasts always found it apart of our everyday life (or, at least I do). I strongly agree with Appleman when she says, "...that contemporary literary theory provides a useful way for all students to read and interpret not only literary texts but their lives- both in and out of school" (2).
I feel that any means of allowing the student to connect with the literature is an excellent way to present literature. Reader-response is a great way to do this. Yes, your student may butcher the peice of literature, but it's a start! Learning about Marxist, modern, feminist, etc. analysis also engages curiousity, and excersizes the brain. It also is a history and philosophy lesson. I feel that a well rounded education does encompass knowing these thoeries.
It's interesting how Appleman automatically makes a connection of literary theory and new classroom ideas. I never knew that literary theory had a stigma of being arbitrary. I suppose us English enthusiasts always found it apart of our everyday life (or, at least I do). I strongly agree with Appleman when she says, "...that contemporary literary theory provides a useful way for all students to read and interpret not only literary texts but their lives- both in and out of school" (2).
I feel that any means of allowing the student to connect with the literature is an excellent way to present literature. Reader-response is a great way to do this. Yes, your student may butcher the peice of literature, but it's a start! Learning about Marxist, modern, feminist, etc. analysis also engages curiousity, and excersizes the brain. It also is a history and philosophy lesson. I feel that a well rounded education does encompass knowing these thoeries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
