Holoda’s Weblog

Just wanted to comment on the article Prof. Rhodes sent out entitled “Balto. Co. to overhaul report cards” from the Baltimore Sun. Baltimore County apparently is going to try to implement a new electronic report card that provides a detailed assessment of a students growth in elementary school. It will “assess [not only] students’ acquisition of knowledge, but also their application of knowledge” using multiple modes of “measurement” in each individual subject. It is irritating to me (although this is a nice idea and all) that little consideration is given to the extra workload on the teacher. If anyone is a teacher or knows one (elementary school or high school), I am sure they are aware of how much teachers are already highly overworked and underpaid. For the amount of extra hours already required of the job (outside of “contract hours” which is only a portion of how much time teachers dedicate to grading, revising, planning etc.), this additional imposition irks me, especially considering the amount of personal time that is already consumed by report cards. The article does mention this a little at the end. Here’s the link…  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_county/bal-md.co.schools21may21,0,5107596.story

The more abstract these articles are, the more distracted I get with this stuff. Richard Buchanan theorizes design in his article “Rhetoric, Design, and Humanism,” and I just want to briefly comment on the begging in of his piece. I liked his discussion of a subject matters “indeterminacy,” and the three points he makes to try to illustrate why ambiguity is a good thing. First, he says ambiguity in design is distinguished from the scientific tendency towards “neutrality” or the tendency to gravitate towards the “understanding of determinate subject matters” (229). Next, “indeterminacy” implies ongoing change and “diversity,” he emphasizes the “play” of meaning as it is “continually evolving.” Lastly, he says that the indeterminacy of a subject implies that it has many “alternative resolutions.” I thought this particular section really echoed Derrida in his discussion of “play” and the significance of a “non-centered” approach to any text. Viewing things through the lens of multiplicity and ambiguity are essential to enjoy the richness of meaning implied in a text. Now with Buchanan this approach is necessary in regard to any integration of “art,” and he gives a historical overview of design from antiquity to modern times….

I was just thinking about the discussion Thursday and the time we spent on the idea of the “five paragraph essay,” if it was effective or useful, is there really an “end” to a piece, etc. I was trying to reflect upon my own experience with this thing, and I realized that it wasn’t until the end of my undergrad/beginning of the graduate program that I began to really understand the purpose of the five paragraph essay, and how to step outside of it’s boundaries (or even understand that I could and it was ok to do so). Although the format is limiting and tends to negate meaning/s, it is necessary to be successful in the institution of education. I think I am still getting used to asserting my own voice in a work, or criticizing, analyzing, examining a topic that is currently “unconventional” or not generally discussed. Sirc asks at one point in his “Box Logic” piece if one should teach the students according to life experience or the academy (he chooses life experience). I think my point is that there are these hoops one has to jump through in an institution that is defined from a point of exteriority, that unfortunately disrupts (but of course does not negate), the attempts to move beyond merely “satisfying the standards” of what has been presented as English Studies. I think that’s why I appreciate Cixous so much: the very format and flow of her writing defies convention yet she has very poignant things to say about the way we speak, write, and ultimately think.

I thought the Reich article was interesting (“Turn Teen Texting Toward Better Writing”), as he had an interesting approach to the sometimes annoying technologies that I have to deal with as an occasional substitute teacher. He suggests the incorporation of teen technologies into the classroom,(or “mirror[ing] the online social networks of youth culture”), such as Myspace, Facebook, texting, chatting, etc. I think his approach sounds great but when I reflect upon all of the classrooms that I have had to sub for (namely high school/junior high grades), it’s hard for me to visualizes some of these things actually happening. Of course it is always good to use these medias as a way to involve the kids in current events and spur “intellectual productiv[ity],” but the truth is that many kids in the school system just don’t care. Of course I acknowledge the fact that my experience has been cultivated through the lens of a substitute, which for many kids signals a “free day” in which they can fool around during the usual haphazard “watch-a-video” assignment. But doing anything outside of the requirements of any assignment and incorporating schoolwork into one’s blog or Facebook communication seems pretty unlikely. But then again, Reich is suggesting a cultural adjustment of the five-paragraph-essay, pen-and-paper standard assignment, and I can be a little bitter at times when I think about my experiences substituting…

     Not trying to be a particular theory nerd here, but in studying all the texts for the comp exam, everything seems to connect to Foucault, Derrida, Burke, etc., etc…. In the case of the Birdsell/Groarke article, Bakhtin keeps popping into my mind. The Birdsell/Groarke text argues for the notion that visual images can be more understandable than word print. I think this section of the piece connects well with Baktin’s “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language,” particularly in the claim that word print can be more limited, “vague and ambiguous,” than visual argumentation in the image. Bakhtin stresses that social context not only structures reality, but the individual’s consciousness. All signs (i.e. words) have a material embodiment (defined only through social interaction) that shapes the consciousness (there is no such thing as the “individual”; rather, one is shaped through language in a social context). Birdsell/Groarke show the hooked fish image to indicate an example of the visual argument as conveying a clear message to an audience: “the argument that you should be wary of cigarettes because they can hood you and endanger your health” (311). Bakhtin’s notion of “audience” also assumes that there is “no abstract addressee” because the “audience wouldn’t know him.” The speaker, (or in the Birdsell/Groarke article, the image) assumes the recipient is “up to date” with cultural conversation, morality, ethics, etc.