. Spinning .

Stumbled across this site called “Interactives, Elements of a Story” that may be a very useful tool for teachers to reach students via the internet in helping them learn about, for one thing, the elements of a story as in this case. It is an interactive site that offers visuals, audio to tell the story of Cinderella, then includes the assistance of further explanation of the elements, i.e, setting, and a checkup quiz.

But wait, there’s more; the site also offers similar interactives on Math, History, Science and Cinema.

UPDATED: Charles has posted his thoughts on students: “The ones that get away are the ones that haunt you.”

Sometimes you get a sneak peek inside the soul of a professional and that flash reveals the reason why they do what they do, and why they’re good at it.

Charles Deemer is a writer, playwright, teacher, and blogs about his experiences and his work at The Writing Life II. In a post today he mentions his scriptwriting course and a particular student he dealt with in evaluation of his work.

Made a mistake with an advanced student whose work I admire by giving a curt, frank assessment of a script in progress, rather than being more politically correct in my communication.

(. . .) Meanwhile he’s an unhappy camper. I thought my clear admiration of his talent permitted a response without window dressing but I was wrong. Now I’ve lost him, probably for good. I blew it.

I don’t know exactly what he means by ‘politically correct’ and as most of you know, I’m against pc, though all for old-school common sense and politeness and I think this is what Charles is driving at.

One of the main elements of teaching, aside from disseminating information, is to understand the x number of different ways in which people learn and, by guess-judging each student as an individual as to their method, gearing the material to each as much as possible. After all, the material doesn’t change (except applying Barthes’ principles) so the students are the variable and there are obvious (and researched) signals that indicate how an individual is responding to the knowledge being offered. I’ve had a history teacher who every day plopped the textbook in front of him and bid us do the same, then lectured the entire class with occasional glances down and the requisite turning of a page. His delivery was almost word for word with the book. I’ve also had teachers who are so enthralled with the topic (which is why they got into teaching) that they never noticed a student completely asleep the whole time.

Good teaching is a a combination of caring about the subject, wanting to share that information, and understanding that the best way to do that is by recognizing and appealing to the various receptors in order to achieve that result. It’s a guess based on experience and it’s not going to be conclusive or successful 100% of the time but it’s the closest thing to gaining the result I can think of using.

In the next few years the education system will see a glut of teachers because of the government funds being directed into that field and the lack of job opportunities in the private sector as the economy worsens before it gets better. It’s going to mean even more to have an instructor such as Charles who truly seems to care about reaching individuals, not just “my students” or “my class.”

One of the best articles I’ve read recently on learning and literature, from The Chronicle, “Against Readings”:

Everyone who teaches literature has probably had at least one such
golden moment. I mean the moment where, reading casually or reading
intently, being lazy or being responsive, one is shocked into
recognition. “Yes,” one says, “that’s the way it really is.” Then
often, a rather antinomian utterance comes: “They say it’s not so, but
I know it is. I always have.”

For all the English Professors out there, McSweeneys “Internet Age Writing Syllabus and Course Interview” is just too funny:

Week 1:
Reading is stoopid

This fundamental truth may seem obvious to today’s youth, but this wasn’t always the case. Students will examine why former generations carried around heavy clumps of bound paper and why they chose to read instead of watching TV or playing Guitar Hero.

Lisa’s comment on Facebook this morning catches me cold:

Instantaneous access to information appears to be eroding our ability to thoughtfully reflect.

And it makes me stop and think. And try to form an opinion by experience. When I read, for example, I avoid going online (unless absolutely necessary, like with your first Faulkner) to seek help in understanding a book. Obviously I wouldn’t be running to the library to do this in pre-internet days but that’s not why I’m avoiding assistance; I want to be untainted by other interpretations and to see it based on my own experience of life, other readings, etc. But the thing is, is that I could indeed find anything I needed within minutes and get a whole slew of opinions and insight and angles that would help form my own take on things.

Steve points out another potential problem of technology referred to in an article by Kevin Kelly as they explore the nature of the beast and weigh the arguments against with some unfounded probabilities and very viable benefits. As Steve notes, there is a dearth of agreed-upon definition in trying to assess its impact. And the scale is tipped often merely by preference or what is given up in acceptance of replacement. Would you rather drive a Ferrarri or get there by horseback? On the other hand, your Ferrarri, no matter how shiny and red, doesn’t nuzzle you looking for sugar or run with mane flying across open fields.

Volleyball team going to court after filing a lawsuit against the college for cutting the sport? Equal Opportunity? Only reason they came to Quinnipiac College? For crying out loud, don’t these kids know that there’s an economic crisis going on? Why don’t they stay, maybe apply themselves to book-larnin’ instead, and then go out and compete for jobs some day. I sure hope their parents are paying for at least their side of the court costs and legal fees.

Look, I sympathize with what must be a very, very disappointing decision (almost kind of like, you know, losing your job or your house or stuff) but we all are making sacrifices–or an awful lot of us are. Meanwhile, we made it without the major baseball league playing and I think we can survive a year without QU volleyball.

I really, really need to stop reading the news. This, from the White House Blog on making college more attainable:

The fact that well over one million students who could qualify for aid went without it during the 2003-2004 school year is one indication that the application process is too complicated. Furthermore, students who do not apply for aid due to the complexity of the process may be discouraged from applying to college at all, reducing college attendance rates. As a result, the complicated process works at cross-purposes with our goal of increasing college attendance and completion. Experts widely agree that the system is in need of change. There are two broad strategies to simplify the financial aid application process that are currently under discussion.
One strategy is to make it easier to complete the current form. For example, according to The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS), about two-thirds of the questions on income and assets that are included in the FAFSA form can be automatically answered using IRS data. This means that the U.S. Department of Education could obtain this information directly from the IRS, and the student or family would only be required to answer the remaining questions.

Uh, I know that some of these forms are a bitch, but they are do-able. Perhaps college isn’t the answer for everybody? Maybe being able to fill out the application can be used as part of the entrance exam?

Well we’ll have tons of graduates if that’s what they’re after; pay more government employees to fill the applications out ’cause they’re too hard, make sure that every student can comprehend and pass through four years to graduate (tough break for English teachers who will have to learn to adjust their expectations of reading and writing from students) and let’s pay for the whole kit and kaboodle too. Yeah, we’ll have a higher rate than those other countries once more. But what quality of graduate are we shoving out there?

Ronni Bennett has an excellent post up at Time Goes By referencing Ralph Keyes, writing in Editor & Publisher, wherein he advises writers against retrotalk, that is, phrases and idioms that many young people or immigrants may not be familiar with.

It’s just another example of lowering standards to meet the masses (and make them feel good about themselves–that “everybody is a star” philosophy that I think is so asinine) rather than raising the level of literacy and encouraging the masses to rise to meet it. I can hear the teachers screaming now, but come on, this has been a slowly degenerating process of learning for several decades now and I am in awe that no one understands the problem well enough to see the solution. As Ronni points out, if anything, these days there are faster, easier, more immediate ways of learning than ever before via the internet.

Frankly, I think that everyone would be better off–teachers, parents, and most importantly, the kids themselves–if more rather than less were expected of them. This, from a Washington Post article in which Susan Jacoby is quoted, should worry us:

“That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. . .it’s the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism — a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse.”

It seems to me, that older generations, with their minds stuffed to overflowing on decades of words can still quickly pick up on all the new terminology that comes from each new concept and trend, then the younger ones can bother to go look up what they don’t immediately ‘get.’ Maybe something good will come of the knowledge.

Just received a comment from someone whom I’d quoted via an article in one of my posts on the education system and today’s students and want to highlight it here as it has somewhat restored my faith in mankind, even as it points out another failing:

It is I- Mickey Tomar, here to respond to you’re misled beliefs on this story. First of all, its true that I contacted an essay website, I was in a panic, and I wanted to give it a try. I never had any intention of turning in the paper custom-written for me because that would obviously be plagiarism. I was hoping that it would spur some ideas of my own because I was having a huge mental blank. The day after I hired the service, I wrote the paper myself and got a top 3 grade in the class. I realized that I do have the confidence and ability to write a good paper. Yes, I was wrong for attempting to ask someone to do my work for me, but hey I made a mistake, and I learned from it. My problem is with this reporter-Thomas Bartlett who like most reporters, never accurately record quotes. I NEVER said that it was acceptable to have someone research for you. Furthermore, I did not say I defend the idea of paid research either. This reporter took some of my words out of context and embellished it with his own words to prove his point. Talk about ethics, this reporter needs to check himself out. My professor actually refused to be included in this article because he thought the reporter had suspicious techniques for gaining and reporting information. In conclusion, I do not condone academic paid research or false statements by obnoxious reporters. I learned that reporters are like rappers- you can’t believe everything they say (they might be high on something).

I apologize to Mickey as he claims he has been misquoted by the reporter and I believe that it is highly likely to be the case. And knowing that Mickey is majoring in philosophy and religion, I would think that his intentions are pure and that the inexperience and judgment of youth had been the mitigating factors in his decisions and are highly forgivable.

However, I might suggest that this same youth factor has affected his reaction here as well in his suggestions that “Thomas Bartlett, who like most reporters, never accurately record quotes” and “I learned that reporters are like rappers- you can’t believe everything they say (they might be high on something).” would indicate a sweeping generalization and stereotyping of reporters (and rappers) that he no doubt instinctively finds as distasteful as plagiarism and twisting of facts in reporting. I’m also a bit wary of the excuse of “panic” and a “huge mental blank,” but I’m a hard-ass on cheating but have faith that Mickey is on the right track.  As many philosophers have noted, there cannot be good without evil, and sometimes we all have to taste the bad to convince ourselves rather than believe someone else’s word–which as Mickey has noted, cannot always be believed.

So thank you, Mickey, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to come forward and wish you the best of success in all your achievements both at James Madison and your promising career ahead.

Very disappointed to see that not only is hypertext or any other form of new media not represented at the Tunxis Writers Festival this year, but that the public is not being offered the ability to attend this community college function. Odd, at a college that’s ahead of many in stepping over the edge into the New Media field by offering two courses devoted to New Media, and many others such as Digital Animation that apply.

Maybe this all goes back to Dene Grigar’s essay on how hypertext, et al, is presented at the academic level, Electronic Literature, Where is It?, and whether it is a discipline unto itself or if its relationship to Literature, etc. is undeniable.

Got the flyer in the mail the other day on the Wesleyan Writers Conference which is scheduled for June 14th-19th this summer. It appears that there are a couple of new speakers and instructors and I’m sure it will be another exciting affair for writers to mingle, learn, get critique from experts, and keep up on the happenings in today’s world of writing.

For more information, visit the Wesleyan Conference website.

While I agree with the concept of the Chronicle’s point that universities should include a more globally caring image in areas of what is taught in “anthropology, cultural studies, economics, ethics and sociology,” it does make one look deeper into the problem.

Perhaps because I happened upon this article just a couple days after this one on India’s situation I am questioning the lack of national loyalty and responsibility in other countries where this type of assistance and planning is so desperately needed. I’m certainly no expert on world affairs, and know little about India’s economics, but I do know that education is highly prized and that universities are growing in this country. Students there, as well as those students who have left India and have been studying and gaining their degrees in European and American universities certainly produce engineers that should consider this a priority and design sewer systems that will bring the serious health hazard of open defecation to a halt, bring the outlying areas of the major cities into the modern day standards of hygiene and create jobs at the same time.

I’m sure there is a need for more caring on the part of Americans to expand their efforts and ambitions beyond our shores, but to point to it as “America’s Shame” is a bit harsh. There’s another factor at play here; America, supposedly the greatest and most diverse nation in the world, has its own share of rightful shame.  Look under any overpass in New York City, any alley in Chicago and Detroit.

From Steve Sailer’s perspective on a Louis Soares article:

But, here’s a reform for making some degree of “college attainment” more feasible, one that I’ve never seen suggested before:

Why shouldn’t four year colleges give out two year Associates of Arts degrees?

Though it’s true that many job requirements specify “some college,” it’s not clear what that means to them except perhaps a maturity to take on the prospect. But there’s a difference between “some college” as a dropout of a four-year institution and the attainment of an Associates Degree.  Or is there?