Dual-Entry Exercise

Because there's a poster of it on my wall for easy reference, some thoughts on the famous woodcut by the Japanese master Hokusai, "The Great Wave."

1. Observation and Description
An ocean scene. Calm, blurred waters in the background, contrasted to the crest of a large wave and other waves. Three fishing boats filled with men are partially visible within the crashing waves. As a composition, this piece pays close attention to line and repetition. The areas at the tops of the waves are white against the blue water. In the wave valleys, repeating downstrokes of white suggest motion, as do the stylized curves at the tops of the waves. There appears to be a mountain in the distance, a snow capped peak that peeks out between the wave swells. A good 3/8ths of the space is simply the white/cream background that represents the sky. In the top left corner are some series of kanji that I cannot interpret, though I imagine it names Hokusai as the artist.

2. Reflections and Notes
Might need to provide some historical and artistic background on Hokusai and Japanese woodcuts. Also, their influence in Europe in the 1900s as an influence to Art Nouveau (curvilinear attenuated ornamentation). Lines: boats, wave valleys, background line behind the waves and mountain. Repetitions: curved wave tops, men in boats, white flecks on larger wave. Could be some room for a discussion of fractals and their role in art and nature (break from seeing the world as a set of repeatable figures, i.e. circle, square, rectangle, triangle). Though there is repetition, is is not exact (like rhymes in poetry--what if a sonnet had all 14 lines end on the same word?); this represents the world as a series of indistinct patterns. What is the meaning of the colors? Find out how woodcuts were produced in Japan (I assume they were hand-inked and pressed to some kind of linen or canvas screen) and if color would be in the artist's mind. Main colors: blue, yellow, and white. Find someone who can read Japanese or do some research into the meaning of the printed kanji.

Voice and Expressive Power

While I understand many scholarly conceptions of voice and its ability to empower writers, I am much more interested in the different ways voice can apply to audience. Students should be writers of expressive voice--and perhaps one duty of English teachers is to encourage this process--who write in journals, blogs, letters, class notes, and other varied media. By reaching down into themselves to express personal feelings and somehow imbue themselves on paper, students do become empowered. I feel, however, that a great deal of students DO write expressively, and often. They scribble during lectures, text message their friends, communicate on the internet, and many have blogs or journals. This type of writing surrounds students and, in some ways, can define or limit the way they present themselves in less expressive writing. While some scholar somewhere may find enjoyment in reading through the instant messaging logs of 14-18 year olds, I think that the true function of "voice" is in how it comes across in communicative writing. A common mistake of college freshman in composition is a lack of consideration of the audience's (teacher or evaluator's) needs.

I draw an example from this semester: though I am not a CI or DI, I am responsible, as an employee of the Office of National and International Scholarships in the Honors College, for evaluating the personal statements of HC freshmen. In evaluating these, I find that the comment I'm making most runs along the lines of: "This is a good start, but I think you need to consider your audience more. Assuming I was a member of an academic scholarship committee, what more would I need to know in order to award you money to continue your education?" I am assuming most of them did not do subsequent drafts, for the majority of the writing is highly expressive. They talk in highly "voiced" ways about their pasts, describe their feelings, and try to define the characteristics they possess (or, perhaps, think that I want them to have, like "leadership" or "empathy" or "hard work"). What they fail to do is reflect maturely on these experiences, relate them to their present or future, or present details key to the reading of a scholarship statement (you might be surprised how many I had to ask, "what is your major? what careers are you considering?"). At least with these statements (and I'd be interested to see how it correlates to any of your DI or CI work), the case seems to be that voice overtakes the needs of the audience in freshman writing. What these students need to learn is to consider their audience and how to present themselves to that audience in way that still contains "voice," but does seem off-putting or awkward. With these expressive writings come other immature mistakes in grammar, sentence structure, organization, etc. In some cases, the students reveal ultra-personal details about their lives that, were the audience in mind, would have no place in a personal statement for an academic scholarship.

So let's allow students to develop that expressive side of their voice on their own--with perhaps a little guidance as it seems necessary. Teachers can certainly encourage students to engage in all sorts of writing activities like journaling, blogging, or even scrapbooking. Perhaps these could be a part of certain assignments in middle school and high school, but by the time they get to college, students need to understand how to translate that voice they have developed as an individual into writing that communicates specific information and details to an understood audience. The best writers are present in all of their writing, be it fiction, academic essay, or newspaper article. Good writers are aware of the rhetorical triangle and attempt to reach a sort of balance in their writing. The writer is present, the reader is considered, and the text is rich and correct. While the balance may shift for certain genres, it is always in view. I see voice not as the most important thing in writing, but one of many components that must be considered and taught in composition.

What is a Perfect Teacher?

As much as people may complain about public education (secondary and post-secondary), I have had, as a whole, more good teachers than bad. Those teachers who were my favorites did not have the same teaching styles, or even teaching goals. The things they had in common were: a love of their subject, a love of teaching, and the ability to get students interested in what they had to say. As a future teacher, my past experiences as a student combine with my current understanding and goals for teaching to outline some of the methods I will eventually utilize. Reflecting on the many assignments I have done from the viewpoint of "the other side of the desk" has yielded a better understanding of which types of assignments work and which are actually counterintuitive to learning. What is amazing is that no teaching style, teaching philosophy, or teaching method(s) are correct: a teacher needs to have a thorough understanding of the many concepts these things involve. The result is a sort of mental portfolio of strategies to use as applicable in different situations. More than anything else, I see flexibility and reflexivity (thinking back on previous methods and adapting them to changing situations) as important qualities to have as a teacher. Finally, I also think it is important to constantly reevaluate my decision to be a teacher. I hear so many stories of "teacher blowout," but in my opinion, teaching isn't just a job that you drop when you decide you don't like it, but a calling of sorts. The sad thing is, I will never make every student I have interested in literature and writing, some students will resist learning no matter what I try (but I still need to try), and I will sometimes feel that I have not done my best by every student. Through experience, I have to learn to be okay with this, but not give up because of it. I guess there is no such thing as a perfect teacher, but qualities which make someone more likely to have success in the classroom.

Struggles n' Such

I suppose something that is puzzling/worrying to me has less to do with ideology and more to do with implementation of those ideas in the classroom. What current scholarship seems to be pointing to is the necessity of different and innovative approaches that match the changing needs of a diverse student body. Teachers and professors who are able to tailor their methods to individual classes, students, or situations are much more likely to have "success in the classroom" than ones who rely on the same structure they have used for X number of years. In thoughtspace, this all sounds well and good, but how do you, as a teacher, identify where students are coming from? How do you decide what method will work best for each class, and how do you work with the individual students who need such tailored approaches? I'm sure that this sort of knowledge will come readily with experience in the classroom, but I suppose that I, like many people who want to teach but have only limited experience, am deathly afraid of failing my students (in the sense that I fail to teach them something, not that they fail to pass the standard assessment measures).