DFaye Anderson
Professor Gleason
ENGL 0862 Teaching Composition and Literature
6 December 2014
Reflective
Essay
As I consider this past semester, I am thankful for a
number of things. I benefited from joining a class of serious learners, who
came from diverse teaching backgrounds. My colleagues work as tutors, and as teachers
of adult and ESL learners. Some of them are first time adjuncts, others, seasoned
vets. A few are part of the MFA program, others from the Literacy or Literature
side of the department. The diversity of voices and experiences has informed my
thinking. Take the Anti-Rubric rebels,
for instance. I’ve always used rubrics in my teaching, but their perspective
was so new and startling, it caused me to consider their arguments and to take
a new look at my own reasoning (Just
because you’ve always done it that way, doesn’t mean...!) The jury is still out, but I am thinking about
how I can use a rubric and incorporate some of their thinking. I
wa energized by the passion of my colleagues and their commitment to becoming
more effective teachers. No one mailed I in.
There was an abundance of scholarship to read and discuss,
but it was a piece we read early in the semester, “Interrogating Text: From
Deferent to Efferent and Aesthetic Reading Practices,” by Cheryl Hogue Smith,
that had the greatest impact. “Successful readers know how to
face the confusion and insecurity of reading complex texts without
internalizing the sometimes destructive feelings that accompany the process of
working through the confusion.” (10) Now, I knew that. I understand the role
self-esteem plays in a student’s success. Yet, those words served as a reminder,
and they came at the beginning of the semester. I incorporated the reference
into my lessons and had my high school students, many of whom struggle with
reading, discuss it. My hope was to
encourage them by pointing out that research acknowledges their confusion and
identifies the feeling as universal. Reading, for most, at some time, proves
challenging, and we all experience feelings of inadequacy. This too shall pass,
if you don’t give up and don’t make it personal. Yet, Smith doesn’t let them off the hook. “If students are ever to write successfully
in the academy, thy must metacognitively read difficult and complex texts that
will initially and inevitably require them to experience and endure confusion,
at least for a while.”(11) Translation:
read the difficult passage, you must, read it two times, three times, if you
must, because the only way to get beyond it is to go through it.
Another
assignment I found insightful and helpful was to observe another college
instructor and to write up the observation. This afforded us the opportunity to
watch someone handle classroom management, late arrivals, students who talk too
much and those who shy away from speaking. I watched as Ms. Joseph paced her
class so as to get maximum effort from her students. I watched her effortlessly
command respect and spoke to her afterwards about the steps she took in her
first classes to build community. This assignment made me think about the
choices I make in the classroom. I certainly will revise my syllabus to make it
more comprehensive and I will return to some discarded practices that helped me
learn about my students as people.
Professor Gleason knew it was important to expose us to other
instructors and other styles and facilitated this by contacting and securing
instructors willing to allow us into their classes. In addition, she brought in
guest speakers, two adjuncts who shared their experience and entertained our
questions.
My
classmates and the readings have impacted my methodologies and my thinking, but
I’ve learned the most in this class, by watching Professor Gleason teach us
about teaching. Gleason has modeled
dedication, humor, openness, and employed a multiplicity of teaching
strategies.
Professor
Gleason employs standard methods, lecture and printed text. She utilizes the
white board to outline important ideas. These are not the only tools she uses
though. Gleason fosters student learning through partner and small group
discussions. Those discussions helped me clarify my understanding of some of
the theories, because I was able to be less than perfect in a small setting, and
not worry about it. In addition, each of
us has collaborated with a classmate to make a presentation and to write a
paper. Peer teaching is a valuable tool for any class at any level. Professor Gleason also kept watch that we
stayed on task in these groups and made us accountable for the time.
Most
encouraging though, was to see Professor Gleason engage technology. My own
computer skills are limited: I read my email, send emails, read the Sunday Times online and play a little solitaire.
Professor Gleason posted many of the readings to the CCNY Bulletin
Board, so if you lost your copy, there was always another source available.
Gleason had us create a blog and upload our assignments. This assignment forced
me to try something I am very uncomfortable doing. The experience and watching
her work so confidently, was affirming.
Finally, Professor Gleason’s generosity impressed. She
was always prepared with additional copies of the readings and gave them out,
without complaint or attitude, and that had an immediate impact on my methods. I
used to sell pens, 25 cents each, to students who showed up without writing
utensils. After watching Gleason, it occurred to me that it was more important
that we get on with the learning, as we have only fifty minutes, than lose time
making a point about student responsibility (there are other places to do
that). She was generous with her time, too, staying after class, on a Thursday
night, to show me how to create a blog.
She was always available after class and I often left her helping, talking
or listening to my colleagues, long after class was over. I’d be remiss if I
neglected to talk about the bowls of Hershey’s chocolate s and other chocolates
she brought in and shared.
Be clear. Professor Gleason’s generosity was balanced by
her demand for accountability. We had to revise and resubmit both major writing
assignments, and I remember with humor the time she thought I was trying to
escape without turning in an assignment. Professor Gleason was standing,
chatting with two or three students after class had ended. Others were either
packing up or talking. In essence, it was controlled chaos. It appeared that
Gleason was totally engaged in her conversation with the students gathered
around her. As I walked to the front of the room, on the other side from her,
Professor Gleason suddenly turned from her group and asked me for the
assignment. I’ve seen her do that a
number of times since. Like any good teacher, she may not see everything, but
she sure sees a lot! I’ve had a great seat to watch Professor Gleason work,
from my place in the back of the room, with an unobstructed view of
all of my classmates and the professor.
This
is the final class of my career here at City College and, were it not my last
course, I’d vote to do it again! Why? I believe this course should be taught
over two semesters, to allow more time for students to grapple with the
readings and practices and ideas. Time is always and forever a premium, and so
I relish the opportunity to go back to some selections (and to read others for
the first time), after the semester, when I’ll have time to ponder, savor and
review. I will miss though, the chance
to bounce ideas off of Edwin or William or to seek Caitlin’s opinion. That kind of interaction has been one of the
highlights of this class.
Works Cited
Smith, Cheryl Hogue. “Interrogating
Texts: From Deferent to Efferent and Aesthetic Reading
Practices.” Journal
of Basic Writing 1 (2012): 5-25. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment