DAY 2 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered lesson 17 in the Sentence Diagramming workbook, more about Possessive Nouns. This lesson includes new layers of lines, so it might seem a bit tricky at first, but the logic is the same as for all attributive adjectives.

Then, we began our discussion of the Tannen and Pollitt essays, starting with the Tannen essay.

First, I provided you with a copy of some of her basic premises, and I asked you to agree or disagree with each one, using your anecdotal support from the past couple of days to help you make a determination:

1. Girls define themselves and their relationships through the way the talk to one another.
2. Boys define themselves and their relationships through the way they act with one another.
3. Boys engage in "ritual opposition" in almost all activities.
4. Boys use language to establish hierarchy.
5. Class discussion is inherently modeled to prefer boys' methods of speaking.
6. Debate relies upon competitive chllenges, and thus favors boys.
7. These language differences appear to be "Nature," not "Nurture."
8. Women learn by "contextualizing" (understanding things from a variety of views, seeing things from the author's perspective, connecting it to real-life experiences, etc.) Men see this as "soft."
9. Men learn by dismantling and then rebuilding. Women see this as "combative."
10. "Many, if not most" women shrink from being challenged nd find it humiliating.
11. Men prefer to speak in public.
12. Women prefer to speak in private.
13. Women think it is rude to seek the conversational spotlight.
14. Men think it is their job to seek the conversational spotlight.
15. Women who avoid speaking in large groups are likely to thrive in small groups, especially if partnered with people like them.
16. Those who are more passive, polite, or restrained in their conversational style do not have the same educational opportunities as their more assertive peers.
17. Small group interactions in a classroom help promote fairness to all learning styles.

I then asked you to add any underlying assumptions you see operating here; in other words, what are her general, implied or partially stated assumptions about girls, boys, and classrooms?

Once those were identified, I asked you to construct an approximation of her deductive and inductive arguments, and to note any invalidity or fallacies you saw at work.

We then left it open to general discussion about the essay. At the end of class, I asked you to take three to five minutes to write about how this has changed your ideas about class discussions in general.

HOMEWORK:

1. Write down the premises and assumptions for the Pollitt essay, and then identify her deductive and inductive arguments. We'll discuss that essay tomorrow.

2. Generate a list of THREE potential topics for an argument paper of potential interest to USM students. (Assigned lunch tables? No cut policy? Paying for music downloads? etc. And no, these should not be in your list.)

DAY 1 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered Lesson 16 in the Sentence Diagramming Workbook: Interjections and Proper Nouns. Egad! Jinkies! Holy jumping jenny-wren! Great fun was had by all. See me if you would like to check your answers.

Then, it was on to the introduction of the Seagull Reader. Here, some of the basics about rhetoric are laid out, giving you the tools you need to assess an argument. I had you work on a study guide in class. You can find it on the wikispace. Learning this stuff at first might not strike you as inherently interesting (learning the vocabulary of any process usually isn't), but the process itself is actually good fun and rather gratifying once you've had some practice. Think an argument is silly, unconvincing, askew, or totally compelling? Now you can explain why! Who knows; perhaps you'll grow so good at it that you'll become a rhetoric major, which is great groundwork for all you budding lawyers.

The first thing to understand is the difference between a DEDUCTIVE argument and an INDUCTIVE argument. A deductive argument starts with a general premise and ends with a specific conclusion.








An inductive arguments examines several examples to draw a general conclusion.





If you understand these basic points, the "logical arguments" section of the introduction should make a good deal of sense to you. The "fallacies" (logical errors) section might be a bit tougher since not all fallacies are explained well.

For example, BEGGING THE QUESTION, or "circular logic" is not necessarily well-explained in the book. However, the following example serves nicely:

Examples of BEGGING THE QUESTION:

• Bill: "God must exist."
• Jill: "How do you know."
• Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
• Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
• Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
  
  
• "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
  
  
• "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
  
  
• Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
• Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
• Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
• Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."[1]
  
  [1] "Fallacy: Begging the Question." The Nizkor Project. 2009. 13 Jan. 2009 .
  

In the RED HERRING FALLACY, the following happens:
TOPIC A is introduced;
TOPIC B is introduced and it's implied that it's related to topic A, but it really isn't;
TOPIC A is abandoned.

For example:

• Imposing harsher consequences for uniform violations makes sense.
• Visitors to University School are impressed by the students' appearance and the campus.
• In these tough economic times, we need to make a good impression.

At the end of this, you still have no idea why it's a good idea to impose harsh consequences for uniform violations.

We'll continue our work on the introduction in class.

HOMEWORK:

1. Read the above.

2. Read Katha Pollitt's essay, "Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls" in the Seagull Reader starting on page 186 of the book.

3. Complete your anecdotal notes on "class dynamics" for each of your classes. That sheet is also available on the wikispace.

VOCAB QUIZ ON DAY 5 OF THIS CYCLE!

CYCLE 1 - DAY 5 - SEMESTER 2

Today in class, we covered the last 5 words of unit 6. Our quiz will be at the end of the week.

Then, I had you break up into small groups and discuss the two articles on trash television. I asked you to identify how each author appealed to you--logically, ethically, and/or emotionally. I then asked you to discuss which of the essays is better and why. While you had some strong opinions on these essays, you had a hard time explaining those opinions. Your answers indicated that a better understanding of basic rhetoric would be quite helpful in explicating these essays on a structural level. So, tomorrow, we will work our way through the introduction. It might not be riveting, but it will be extremely useful.

On Wednesday, we'll talk about the Tannen essay and the Politt essay that I'll assign tomorrow night ("Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls"). Thursday, we'll do some brainstorming about topics of interest to you.

HOMEWORK:
1. Write sentences on the wikispace
2. Bring your sentence diagramming book to class tomorrow
3. Read Deborah Tannen's essay "Coversational Styles" on pages 231-238 of The Seagull Reader.
4. Take notes on the class dynamic in each of your classes using the worksheet passed out in class and made available on the wikispace (scroll to end of page).

CYCLE 1 - DAY 4 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered words 11-15 in unit 6 of the vocabulary book, I collected your journals from yesterday and today, and we started our argument unit.

I also pointed out that the 3rd quarter ends February 18th. Yikes! While it may not have much repercussion in English, you should be aware that classes which have a quiz/quiz/test format may be a little tough this quarter. (If you really hate this idea, consider writing your argument paper about it...)

Today we read an article by Susan Crabtree: "How Trash TV Pulls America Down the Tubes." Clearly, she wants her reader to take a dim view of television talk shows, but how does she try to get you to think that way? I asked you to look for three kinds of appeals:

1. Those made to your common sense/intelligence;
2. Those made to you moral sensibilities/understanding of right and wrong;
3. Those made to your emotions.

Though we got through the reading, we didn't get a chance to discuss the appeals, but will do so on Monday, when we discuss articles covering both sides of the trash TV debate: "cultural rot" or "moral reinforcement"? The article also mentions some controversial Calvin Klein ads and the furor they sparked. To learn more about them and what resulted, click here. Really makes you wonder about the company, or at least about their choice in advertisers...

I also mentioned today that Jerry Springer once had a respectable career in politics (insofar as such a thing is possible, of course...). His meteoric rise to fame and spectacular plunge to the nadir that is daytime TV makes for great, epic drama. You can hear all about it here. (See? "This American Life" IS a great show!) Do you buy his excuses for what he does, or is he some kind of evil out of Mordor?

This isn't mandatory, but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the likes of daytime talk shows, South Park and the like. Do they damage the moral fabric of society? What would your Middle School morality test have to say? You (and I) are exposed to a veritable cesspool through media, and yet you all strike me as thoughtful, kind, reflective souls who genuinely do what is good for the community and yourselves. Why aren't you tainted if this is the kind of crap you can get your hands on? Fun stuff, these cultural debates. Do tell your opinions!

YOUR HOMEWORK (DUE MONDAY, JAN. 12):

1. Write sentences on the wikispace.

2. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "In Defense of Talk Shows" on pages 60-63 of the Seagull Reader (forget your book? NO PROBLEM.). TIME magazine has the article on line!

For each article, identify the types of appeals named above.

CYCLE 1 - DAY 3 - SEMESTER 2

We tackled the next five words in unit 6, and I checked your journals for last night. (Paul, Alex and Shorty, I know yours are posted on line, and Wil, thanks for the correction!)

Using your journals as fodder and preparation, I posed the following question: Did the Kato and Nakane families have their priorities straight in their treatment of each other and in their response to the external threats that faced them? How so or why not?

You took notes in response to that question, and those are posted on the wikispace. One particular theory came up about Old Man Gower as metaphor for Canada's relationship with the Japanese in their midst. As a kindly neighbor, he is expected to watch out for the Nakane family, especially Naomi. Instead,he clearly exploits her. He tells her to tell no one. Bizarrely, she seeks him out on her own, though she recognizes her behavior is shameful if pleasurable, a recognition that psychologically isolates her from the rest of her family (see page 77). So, if he represents Canada, as protector,he fails the test and instead damages and exploits that which he is supposed to protect. The consequences of this for Naomi also suggest the fractured Japanese families who cannot effectively connect to one another (consider the relationships of just about everyone else in the book, particularly Stephen). For her part as representation of Japanese-Canadians, Naomi returns to Gower, just as Uncle and Obasan claim gratitude for all that Canada has given them, just as Stephen embraces Euro-Canadian culture, just as Emily takes pride in being a Canadian citizen. And Gower, as Canada, imposes the silence that Emily constantly confronts. I think the theory holds water. If this was her intention, how well did she execute it, and what other symbolic interpretation does this invite? For instance, when she puts the baby chicks in with the hen! That's for you to decide.

Your homework:

1. Write sentences on the wikispace;
2. TYPE a more formal journal entry (1.5-2 pages in length, double spaced) that addresses the question from today's class, OR that answers one of the questions you posted on the "Cycle 1 - Day 1 - Semester 2" blog post, using specific instances from the novel and from your own experience/knowledge. You should provide ample, specific detail and incorporate quotations, but you are not restricted to the 12-sentence format.

CYCLE 1 - DAY 2 - SEMESTER 2: Obasan and the world questions

We began class with the first five words of Unit 6 vocabulary. All three sections then moved on to dispiriting conversations. While the questions were undeniably splendid, the topics were just too weighty to get off of the ground.

We talked about issues of loyalty, dealing with the past, and coping with percieved threats. In the novel, Obasan dealt with trouble by being silent. Emily wouldn't shut up and kept agitating. Naomi is closer to Obasan in the spectrum, but it certainly doesn't seem as if any of the characters have found a sort of magical cure.

In one class, we moved on to talk about honesty within families. You'd want to know if your family had some hidden secret, even if it didn't directly affect you (e.g. one of your parents had a brief marriage before you arived on the scene). Yet, you noted that quite frankly, you've been in situations that you feel are none of your parents' business, or that perhaps they would not approve of the situation, but you trust your own good judgment and justify not saying anything to them because you think they'll over-react. The question I posed was this: how come you deserve honesty in matters that don't directly involve you, yet they don't deserve honesty in matters that do not directly involve them? It's worth pondering. All of you said that your parents have given you good advice, and you do honor their opinion. Perhaps some of the splendid questions you developed could be fodder for dinner conversation.

I asked you for homework to address the following:
Under what circumstances should loyalty to each matter more than any of the others?


In other words, under what circumstances should you put "self" before "family" or "family" before "friends." I'd like you to write a page long journal entry on this. If you'd like to post it as a lengthy comment, that's fine by me. Be sure to bring your vocabulary books with you tomorrow, and write sentences on the wikispace.

CYCLE 1 - DAY 1 - SEMESTER 2: Bad Apples and Obasan

ADDITION: I notice that someone voted the book as an "A" and there are still two people who give it a "B." If you do like this lyrical, emotive style of writing that offers plenty of couched and not-so-couched social commentary, I recommend Toni Morrison, Isabel Allende, and Milan Kundera as authors to seek out. They're old school (Kundera hit his heyday in the late seventies through the nineties; Morrison started publishing in the seventies, gobbled up headlines in the eighties and nineties, and has won a nobel prize in the past decade; and Allende has been going strong since the eighties), but they are masters of their craft and do their particular style of writing exceptionally well. I am sure that Ms. Ihrke has plenty of suggestions as well.
******************

Since you took your exam in the morning (hope it went well for you), we did a fairly easy activity in class. We listened to the prologue segment of a recent episode of radio program "This American Life" (click here for a link to the program). In case you were absent, please click the link and listen to the program. Here's how:



Click on the link circled in the picture below (near the bottom, left of center).




The part of the program I want you to listen to takes place between 2:06 and 13:55 of the program. (There's a moment around 9:20 when it sounds like they might be done, but they're not, so keep listening!)

Anyway, the reason I had you listen to this is that in my informal poll about the book on this blog, 95% of respondents give it a grade of C or below (40% are at D). Yeesh. This suggests the potential for lots of "bad appl-ing" (to coin a phrase). We don't have to be crazy about the novel to learn from it, so I want us each to think about how we each can effectively do that over the next few days without being the bad apple that infects the room. And if one of us devolves into bad behavior by being a bully, a pessimist or a sloth, call us on it gently (myself included!).


Toward that end, here's your homework for tonight: I issue you a challenge! We will talk about this book through Thursday of this week. On Thursday night, you'll be writing a journal about it, topic to be determined based on what happens this week. So that we'll have positive discussions that generate interest and participation, I'd like you to develop a question that stems from the novel but which extends to the world outside of it. For example, "Is it ever right to impose distance between yourself and your family?" or "Is silence the best way to get over a troubling time?" In the novel, Obasan might say yes to the latter question, and Emily would sanctimoniously shout "No!" Based on your own experience, family culture, etc., you might have a different answer entirely. Whether or not we like the writing, the novel does raise questions that are important to ponder as we figure out our own time here on earth. Your job is to develop a question that invites discussion and contemplation, giving us the option of looking to the novel for answers, but enough of an out that we aren't stuck with a bad apple problem. Write your question as a comment to this blog post, or if you have issues with posting, send it to me as an email. Please make sure you sign your comment/question with your first name and last initial so I can be sure to give you credit for your work.

Welcome back, everyone!