Although I technically "modelled" the form for the presentation, Berlin (as you pointed out) contained so much new vocabulary that a lot of our discussion was focused on defining and using his terms, connecting to experience and applying his words to the other new words associated with research paradigms. And Brodkey , because of the snow day, was left with so little time that we did not really get to spend time talking about the questions, or opening up implications of power differentials associated with discourse, subject positioning, and (as raised in the questions that went with the reaction paper) the role of the disempowered (students) in resisting/re-casting power structures. This would have been a productive conversation to take up - especiallly in light of our discussion of transformative paradigms.
In your presentations, you may: 1) read all or part of your paper - stopping to engage the class in discussion; 2) assume that classmates have read your paper and after a short extemporaneous summary of the article's main point, its paradigmatic assumptions, and its place in- connection to comp-rhet history, move directly to discussion (be sure to draw our attention to the sections of the essay you choose to discuss - one feature of discussion I did not model especially well was the move for a collaborative, close reading = making specific references to the article); 3) any other kind of discussion which presents a perspective on the article's content and engages the class in about 30 minutes + of discussion.
The sign-up list is as follows:
2/24 Anderson
et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog); Chandler
Royster
(1996), 555; Larissa
Elbow
(1999), 641 Maryellen
3/3 Perl
(1976), 17; Dave
Castillo
& Chandler (2013), pdf Pete
3/17 Bartholomae
(1985),523 ; Meaghan
Heath
(1983) pdf; Omar
3/24 Hawisher
& Selfe (2004), pdf; Gina
Brandt,
pdf. Kristi
No comments:
Post a Comment