data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa3ce/fa3ce6948b44a58ae1708b325a4221344dabe8db" alt=""
I taught two classes today—after despairing when it looked like the enrolment in my expository writing class had fallen to one, my spirits were definitely lifted when, arriving this afternoon, I had seven students in the classroom. After some general introductions (and answering some questions about Australia) we got started, and the discussion was lively. I used part of the following quote from Mark Davis’s essay “Turf War” to start our discussion of youth representation:
“Ten years after the first edition of Gangland was published, young people continue to be economically and culturally marginalised in Australia, pilloried in the media, valorised only insofar as their youthfulness can be commodified, but too rarely sought out for their ideas and opinions.”
Shifting it to an American perspectives, I asked a lot of questions—and I’m really glad that I didn’t just get answers that the students thought I wanted to hear. From talking about the political system, to the education system, to media saturation, we got a discussion going on how young people are treated and represented, and after an hour of talking the students wrote for half an hour, responding to the Davis quote, and to the discussion we had just completed. I’ve still got them to read—but I came out of the classroom feeling really energized. I had a real sense that the students wanted to be there, and were keen to voice their opinions.
After my morning class, though, I was feeling a little bit drained—a lot of silences when I asked a question, then a student would answer. A few friends teaching from the same program said they had real trouble getting kids to work today—said they wanted to chat, and they ended up feeling a bit defeated. I didn’t get that far, but it wasn’t exactly discussion. Tonight I’m going to look at finding a short piece of writing that we can analyse as a piece of writing, and that I can ask them to respond to. I have to figure out which pieces of the longer syllabus I have I can really adapt. I get the sense that the students have only ever responded to a set question, and that in most cases they write to an expected answer. Suddenly there’s this confusion of watching television—familiar—and being asked to think critically about it, and its potential “meaning” or impact—an unfamiliar action. I’ve been tinkering with my syllabus day by day, and I think this is going to continue.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b50a7/b50a7506f3fd299720cde7e797516a1981c7dc4c" alt=""
And then Saturday I got to see a friend from home—Peter E., who I’ve known half my life now, was in DC to give a paper today at George Washington University. Saturday night he invited me to a dinner party at the apartment a friend of his (he and the friends we ate dinner with are all based in San Francisco at the moment—I think its coincidence that they were all here at the same time.) So, a lovely meal, a bottle of wine, some serious punning, and someone else with the Australian accent. So good.
Two nights out led to a quiet Sunday—writing Independence Day entries, reading, watching some of the shows I’m thinking of using clips from in class (an “intellectual” excuse to watch teen drama! Fab!). The usual.
I have a lot of responses to student writing to write tonight and tomorrow—the Renaissance class I’ve been working with meets on Wednesday, and I’ll have a set of blog entries and a set of essays to comment on. Gosh! So busy!