Week 10: Summary of Nicholas Coles, "Empowering Revision" (Chapter 6)

Nicholas Coles, “Empowering Revision” (Bartholomae and Petrosky, Chapter 6):

Summary:

Coles begins by addressing the fact that inexperienced writers often do not understand the need for revision, and can see revision as “a form of punishment – especially when it has been assigned as extra work” (167).

This chapter discusses the ways in which revision has been used in Bartholomae and Petrosky’s BRW class, and how instructors have tried to move beyond making revisions at the level of the sentence or vocabulary, and toward broader, conceptual kinds of changes. This takes place more easily within the context provided by the semester-long sequence of assignments on a single topic in the BRW class; this singular focus approximates “the experience of sustained immersion in inquiry which gives our rewriting its meaning and its context” (168).

• Because the BRW’s sequence of assignments is “persistently recursive” (169), it provides a useful context for reengaging with previous readings and writings and is thus conducive to the revision process.

Revision should be seen “as part of the ongoing process of invention – that is, as a technique for producing meaning” (167), from a perspective informed by “disciplined self-awareness” (169).

Coles distinguishes between “sequential revision,” which involves occasionally citing quotes from previous assignments, and “textual revision,” which involves actively confronting problems with the “luxury of knowing that [the writer] can make changes later” (170).

“Re-seeing” must be taught through two methods: in-class reading and discussion of first drafts, and teacher commentary (170).

Coles describes a class’s discussion of multiple versions of one student’s draft on paid versus unpaid work, which shows how the students function as a kind of scholarly community that promotes the writer to consider other possible interpretations of the topic.

Through class discussion, the instructor aims to show students that writing is a process of representing an event or idea, and that it is thereby not simply a literal reconstruction of history. It is important to maintain this self-awareness throughout the revision process (177-178). Through the choices the writer makes, a narrative can be reshaped to highlight particular ideas and to de-emphasize others.

Coles notes that “at the moment of revision . . . it is the writer who must become [the] reader” and this requires attaining a sense of estrangement and distance from one’s own writing (185).

Coles discusses how teacher commentary can promote deeper kinds of revisions than those promoted by class discussion: teacher commentary can “encourage changes of mind or radical reformulations” (190), as opposed to thinking about “matters of intelligibility, proportion and emphasis” (189).

Coles argues that revision can be an empowering process if it encourages students to better understand the subject that they are engaging with.

How these ideas might inform my own teaching unit:

• I really like Coles’ point that revision can be used to transform and deepen students’ understanding of the subject matter, and I’d like to incorporate revision activities into my unit that promote this new understanding. However, I’m not sure that I could conduct the in-depth dissection of a student’s essay in the meticulous way that Coles describes, as I’ve found it to be difficult to critically deconstruct one student’s writing in front of an entire class.

• I like that time has been provided in this course for the revision process, in order to move it beyond focusing on sentence-level changes and toward a deeper re-evaluation of the writer’s argument and of the topic itself. I think I will have students produce multiple drafts of their essays both in my unit and in the classes I teach in order to realize this goal.

• Coles’ discussion of how teacher commentary can promote a reassessment of the subject being engaged with has encouraged me to find ways to ask probing and guided questions in my own feedback, to point students’ toward a new awareness of how they are constructing their ideas.

Week 10: Comments on Bartholomae and Petrosky Chapters 1-3

Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts: 

Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course

What I like:

I am very intrigued by the concept of teaching a basic reading and writing course in the style of a rigorous graduate seminar. At first I resisted this seemingly radical approach because I wondered if it neglects to teach students the important reading and writing strategies that most composition classes focus on. I was also skeptical about the plan to have students read primarily the writing of other students instead of published texts. But as I read Chapter Two, I warmed to this course plan (and it became clear that both published texts and student writing are integrated into the lesson plans). 

I like the notion of designing a course around the need to address the problem that occurs when students are “unable to speak, and the text is silent” (5), and the need to recognize that these problems “are those of status and authority” (6). The course seems intent upon shifting the traditional emphasis on the instructors’ authority (the “banking concept of education”) by assigning and discussing students’ own writing, by encouraging students to connect their own experiences with the concepts they read about, and to ultimately “publish” their own writing for the class. I especially like this final assignment, and have often thought about incorporating a publishing assignment similar to this, where students create their own magazine or another publication that showcases their work. This seems like the ultimate form of empowerment and validation for students who are struggling to find their own voices within an academic setting; as the authors state, this course “is designed to give students access to the language and methods of the academy” (9). It is inspiring to read that the course aims to get students themselves to “be the source of knowledge, an original” (40); this seems, to me, like the essential goal that instructors strive for, but rarely achieve.

I like the course theme of exploring adolescence, since this is a fruitful topic for students’ own writing about their life experiences, as well as a chance to assign some powerful autobiographical writing; it seems to work well in a course such as this. I also like how the ”case studies” of students’ own experiences are used to build toward developing a theory of adolescent development. This enables students to synthesize their own experiences with theoretical concepts, an important part of academic writing.

I like how class time is set aside for students to choose and read books on their own, which also empowers them. I just wonder if asking students to read four books on their own, in addition to the assigned readings in class, is a bit too much (49).

I like how smaller writing assignments are given and then built upon as students work on a longer writing assignment. For example, Writing Assignment #11 (70) asks students to discuss a turning point in their lives, which will be further developed in their longer autobiographies.

I like the use of students’ actual essays as the basis for discussion of the writing process (93).

What is problematic:

(I like the course philosophy and most of my “problematic” issues have to do with logistical or technical matters.)

The authors state that the writing assignments are not graded, except for the occasional in-class essay exam (50). It seems that a more concrete breakdown of grading criteria is necessary to clearly convey the expectations and requirements of the class.

I’m not sure if asking students to read each book cover-to-cover by the due date is asking too much (50); I realize this is modeled after a graduate seminar, but at this level if a student is reading and is having difficulty with comprehension or anything else, they cannot get help in class until they have completely finished the book. I’m not sure that this provides enough help for struggling readers. 

This is minor, but I did not like the way in which the essay prompts featured questions instead of direct descriptions of the assignments: “would you then write about…?” or “would you be sure to explain…?” (52). I think simply stating the task at hand is preferable to asking a question here, which could make the prompt seem optional and not required.

While I like the focus on incorporating personal experience, it seems more could be done to place the texts within a sociocultural context; this approach seems to be missing from the assignments.

The layout of the assignments was a bit overwhelming and the separation of writing and reading assignments seems to be antithetical to an IRW approach (at least as they appear in Chapter 2).

Will waiting until the sixth or seventh week to discuss sentence-level errors be too late in a basic composition class (97)?

Questions: 

If this course “is designed to give students access to the language and methods of the academy” (9), is this radical “seminar” style the only way to achieve this objective in a basic reading and writing class? Are there ways to integrate some of these assignments/strategies while teaching the course in a more traditional format? 

If student writing is primarily what is discussed and analyzed, are students provided with enough models of strong, published writing as well, to demonstrate what excellent writing looks like? It seems there should be a balance between empowering students through discussion of their own writing, and providing models of the kinds of rhetorical and stylistic aspects of published writing they are being asked to produce.

Is it necessary to arrange for a typist to produce the final copies of students’ autobiographies? I realize this makes it seem more “professional,” but it could also distance students from the final version of their own work. 

Since autobiographical writing can often be very intimate, painful, and personal, do the instructors provide guidelines for how students might handle writing about painful topics? Do they advise that very painful subjects be omitted from their writing? Why or why not? (See question #9 on page 75.)

The student-teacher ratio of 15 students to 2 instructors seems highly unusual and I wonder if the course’s format would work for an average, 30-person composition class? (87)

What I will include in my own unit design:

I like how the course focuses on what students find to be significant without providing too much “cognitive” instruction on finding a “right” answer.” 

I like some of the prompts in Chapter Two, such as the metacognitive reflection/”difficulty” assignment (52-53) and the prereading assignments (81 and 92).

I like how the class discussion worksheets are scaffolded, to begin with identifying main characters and events, to then discussing their significance, to finally incorporating textual evidence to support major claims (63).

I like the vision of the journal assignment as an ongoing “conversation” between instructor and students. 

I like the option to rewrite essays multiple times, and hope to incorporate this into my unit design and teaching.

How this course fits with the principles and strategies we’ve been discussing:

The course seems to provide a foundation for the IRW approach, as the authors point out that they had to struggle to bring a reading and writing focus together within one course and to convince their department that reading could be taught in an English course (13). Sugie Goen-Salter echoes this point in one of her articles on the IRW program at SF State, and I wonder if these authors initiated this debate? 

·      The authors also view “difficulty as a condition of adult reading, as a gift that makes reading possible” (18), and one of the assignments asks students to reflect upon any hardships they encountered while reading; this seems like a precursor to IRW’s “difficulty paper.”

The introductory discussion of “misreading” seems to draw on cognitive notions that there is a “right” and “wrong” way to read a text, and that there is a single right answer to be gleaned from the reading process. The authors note that “the question is not, then, whether some students’ readings miss the mark. All readings are misses. The key question, as Culler says, is ‘whose misses matter’” (6). To define all readings as “misses” implies that there is a correct reading that is somehow never achieved, and I’m not sure that I share this assumption.

The authors later contradict this “cognitive” approach when they criticize teaching the concept of a single, main idea within a text because “it denies readers their own transaction with a text” (12), a point that seems to concur with expressivist approaches. This expressivist angle is reinforced in Chapter Two through the journal assignments that ask students to identify the most significant aspect of each text, without guiding them toward a desired answer. Like McCormick, Bartholomae and Petrosky criticize a cognitive approach that would “directly or indirectly tell students where to ‘find’ meanings”; the authors believe such an approach hinders students from creating their own meanings and finding relevance between the texts and their own lives (14).

Week 9: Community-Building article take-aways

Sacra Nevaire Nicholas, “Community-Building in the Classroom: A Process”

Nicholas defines and describes characteristics of genuine communities and argues for the need to build communities in the classroom.

• The author looks to North American Native American tribes and Australian Aboriginal groups for models of cultures built upon successful communities. These cultures’ versions of community are compared with the dominant notion of community in the United States, which relies on logic, judgment, cause-and-effect, and the scientific method. The spiritually and ecologically harmonious indigenous societies are contrasted with the alienation and disenchantment that permeate American society. The type of community modeled by indigenous societies can provide an antidote to the disconnectedness of American culture and a foundation for building a positive community in the classroom.

•  The goal in the creation and maintenance of a genuine community is for its members to seek ways to live with themselves and others in love and peace, based upon respect, caring, trust, commitment, inclusiveness, and empowerment.

•  True communities include a variety of points of view, and conflict and chaos are allowed to happen in constructive ways, creating a richer sense of reality. This is typified by members who “are committed to a struggling together rather than against each other” (425).

•  Caring communities provide a foundation for instruction, discipline, classroom organization, and all the other pedagogical aspects of classroom work. This affects everything from the motivation of students to teacher autonomy, and enhances students’ academic development. The constraints imposed by our current educational system make it hard to achieve caring communities.

•  Instrinsic motivation is linked to creativity and persistence (this point would seem to lead to classroom activities that cultivate creative responses).

• The author lists four stages of community building, based on Peck’s research. These are:

1. Pseudocommunity: members are on their best behavior, but individual differences are ignored. This stage is likely to occur during the first few days of school.
2. Chaos: individual differences are no longer ignored, but the group tries to obliterate these differences unconstructively. This stage is usually reached after a few days in the classroom when students test limits. 
3. Emptiness: a time of emotional surrender to the group, where members let go of the need for control, and build a bridge between “chaos” and “genuine community.” This stage occurs when students feel despair about the class or the teacher. 
4. Genuine community: true community emerges based on peace and acceptance of differences; masks are dropped and members feel safe to express who they really are.

• Some specific community-building ideas include using a “talking pencil” (following Native Americans’ use of a “talking stick/staff,” which regulates who may speak until consensus is reached.

•  Another idea is to limit students to asking one question per day of the teacher, and to ask one another all other questions, which de-centers the power dynamic to give students a sense of shared leadership.

• A true community emphasizes pluralism, with decisions reached by consensus, rather than control. A teacher must be willing to let go of a need to monopolize verbal interactions, to be overly helpful, look like a hero, give quick and easy answers, or promote only their own ideas.

•  One potential problem with encouraging this kind of community is it can be associated with the idea of teaching attitudes and “values.” Another problem is a false dichotomy that is often set up between teaching challenging curriculum or nurturing students’ social well-being; this is a false dilemma because both can occur simultaneously. In fact, the quality of the classroom community may be vital to students’ long-term learning.

Questions:

**When the author states that “schools first must become purposeful communities, where members are bonded through shared values, conceptions, and ideology” (425), I wonder if this is ever possible to actually achieve in the classroom; complete consensus on these issues may not be possible.

**What kinds of activities could be incorporated in the writing classroom to promote genuine communities?

Week 9: Unit Planning Ideas

 

I am interested in developing a class around the theme of “The American Dream” because this broad topic provides an opportunity for exploring a number of interesting sub-themes, such as “income inequality and democracy,” “changing patterns in marriage,” “educational opportunity,” “debates over welfare,” and “racial inequality.” The topic of the American Dream is relevant to students' lives today, especially given the increasingly difficult prospect that our students will realize this Dream, or will achieve upward mobility, within their lifetimes.

For the unit, I would focus on one or two sub-themes related to the broader theme of “The American Dream.” I have spoken with a few of my classmates about this topic, and through our conversations, was introduced to some great comprehensive articles about the topic, such as The American Dream: A Biography. This has led me to conclude that my unit could be the first in a five-unit, semester-long course centered around the American Dream, and students could start by reading this longer introduction to the topic before exploring a number of sub-themes. If the unit occurred at the beginning of the semester, it would also incorporate community-building activities and would introduce key aspects of the reading and writing processes, such as annotation, citing sources in MLA Style, writing thesis statements, paragraph structure, etc.

I am primarily interested in developing a freshman-level composition course, rather than a remedial course, since this is what I am familiar with as an instructor.

I would like to incorporate a range of elements from a variety of orientations, including cognitive, expressivist, and sociocultural orientations. Because the theme is focused on topics that are relevant to U.S. society today, I imagine it will mainly be sociocultural. The unit will aim to get students to critically analyze their own subject positions in relation to dominant (and alternative) American ideologies, and will encourage them to examine contradictions, challenges, and questions raised by this exploration of cultural ideals and realities. I would also like to incorporate both cognitive and expressivist activities in order to allow students to learn and explore by utilizing a range of strategies and skills, as I think this will ultimately lead to a more well-rounded and provocative course overall.

Possible texts to assign for this unit (listed below related sub-themes):

The American Dream in general:

What Happens to the American Dream in a Recession?
Is the American Dream Dead?
What is it with Twenty-Somethings Anyways?
The American Dream's Empty Promise
Is the American Dream Still Worth It?

The Welfare Debate:

Conservative perspective: Strange Facts About America's "Poor"
Pro-welfare perspective: I Was a Welfare Mother

Income Inequality:

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
Poverty in America: Why Can't We End It? 
The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It

Inequality and Education:
Inequality Undermines Democracy
Income Inequality and Educational Opportunity

 
**Supplemental Films:
Capitalism: A Love Story
Inside Job
 

Week 8: Salvatori Difficulty Paper

 As I read Mariolina Salvatori’s “Conversations with Texts: Reading in the Teaching of Composition,” I encountered three primary difficulties. The first was Salvatori’s use of esoteric terminology, which caused me to pause while reading, circle the unclear words, and then look them up for clarity. The second difficulty resides with Salvatori’s obfuscating use of language in certain places; these are moments when her academic jargon got in the way of my understanding of the meaning of the text. Finally, I was put off at times by what seemed to be a strident, didactic perspective on the teaching of reading and writing; while I understand that Salvatori must take and defend a strong position in this academic article, I found the tone she employs to be a bit disconcerting at times, even as I mainly agree with her basic premises and pedagogical strategies.

On the issue of esoteric terminology, my reading process faltered when I encountered words such as “interlocutor” (a person who takes part in a conversation), “hermeneutical” (interpretive or explanatory), “pharmakon” (not in a dictionary), “rapprochement” (establishment of harmonious relations), “hermetic” (isolated), and “necrophilia” (an erotic attraction to corpses). There are also untranslated words from German such as “erkennen, wiedererkennen, and herauserkennen” (447). Each of these terms gave me pause and slowed down my engagement with the text by forcing me to look up unfamiliar words and then place them into an appropriate context within the article.

• Strategies to figure out the problem: this is an easy one, as most of these words can be looked up in a dictionary, and for the untranslated words, I can review a language dictionary – in this case, in German.

Secondly, I noticed that Salvatori (perhaps unnecessarily) uses obfuscating language and vague references which at times distort the clarity of the argument. For example, she refers to Coles’ proposal to get rid of traditional readings and replace them with written assignments by students “as a pharmakon,” without ever defining what a “pharmakon” is (and in fact, this word is not defined in the dictionary, but one online source referred to it as another word for “sorcerer”). Similarly, she notes in parentheses that “a historical antecedent for my attempt to read the marks on the page as traces of a method could be found in the Renaissance ‘adversaria’ [see Sherman]” (447). I immediately feel a sense of distaste and resistance when reading this, since this sentence seems to be an unnecessary, erudite allusion that was perhaps thrown in by Salvatori to increase the article’s academic legitimacy.

• Strategies to figure out the problem: This is a more challenging difficulty to overcome than unknown vocabulary words. One strategy might be to conduct outside research on the term “pharmakon” or on the Renaissance method that Salvatori refers to, although I am not particularly inspired to do so. If these references were central to understanding the meaning of this text, however, I would conduct this research.

Thirdly, I found Salvatori’s tone to be off-putting in places. For example, she writes that “Nor – an important caveat – can these strategies be lifted out of the theoretical framework I have articulated here and seen as transportable tips or prescriptions; like all strategies, they make sense, that is, are plausible and justifiable, only within the particular approach to teaching that my understanding of ‘the act of reading’ and its connections with writing calls for” (446). What this does to me as a reader is close off the possibility of ever really using Salvatori’s strategies and understanding her theory according to her impossibly high standards; this statement conveys that if an instructor emulates her approach they must do so with exact precision, according to the dictates that she sets forth, and there is no room for flexibility or trial-and-error. This then works to deter me from exploring these strategies on my own or seeing how they might be adapted within my own classroom practices. Finally, Salvatori argues against the creative writing perspective that reading can be a “magical,” mysterious process; while I understand that it is difficult to teach students to analyze “magical” moments, Salvatori’s approach seems to close off this possibility completely, to in fact eliminate joy and pleasure from the act of reading. I wonder: can’t we leave room for this possibility and encourage these moments when they occur, while also teaching reading and writing as self-reflexive, interconnected processes? Are the two mutually exclusive?

• Strategies to figure out the problem: This may be the hardest difficulty to work with, because I cannot think of a way to get beyond my distaste for the (sometimes) strident and prescriptive tone. I think this has to do with my preference for flexibility and openness, and my expressivist belief that we all come to texts with different repertoires. Salvatori’s prescriptive and rigid approach contrasts with my preference for openness. It also seems to discount the pleasure that readers can derive from the reading process. If all pleasure is removed from the process, what is the point of it? I believe (and hope) that critical thinking can be enjoyable (although obviously, this isn’t always the case). Perhaps I need to analyze my own distaste for Salvatori’s prescriptive method and ask whether it touches upon a deeper resistance I have to obeying strict authority figures, to being told what to do without being given much choice? I think my innate resistance to authoritarian approaches, and to obeying rules imposed by authority figures, is a major reason for my resistance to this aspect of Salvatori’s article.

Two other questions: 

1. Salvatori describes “the interconnectedness of reading and writing (that virtual, provisional interaction between two extremely complex, invisible, imperceptible processes that can nevertheless be used to test and to foreground each other’s moves)” (445). Yet this seems to contradict her basic premise that reading and writing practices should be critically interrogated, analyzed, and deconstructed in the classroom. How can this be accomplished if these processes are “invisible” and unknowable? She doesn’t seem to identify how these two things can be reconciled.

2. Salvatori theorizes that we need practices where “students engage texts responsibly and critically. Responsibly, that is, in ways that as far as possible make those texts speak, rather than speak for them or make them speak through other texts” (444). I wonder how we can distinguish between these two things: making texts speak versus speaking for them – since the line between these isn’t always clear?

Week 8: Difficulties with a Challenging Text

A challenging text for me :

I chose the article “The Facts about Poverty in America” by Robert Rector, a senior research fellow in domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation:

The Facts About Poverty in America

I chose this article because I know that Robert Rector is what Mother Jones magazine has called a “poverty denier,” someone who claims to be a scholar, but who uses “research” to undermine the severity of America’s poverty crisis and to belittle those who identify as “poor” by showing that the poor are, in fact, not so badly off. Rector’s thesis is that “The facts about poverty . . . are clear: America’s poor are supported by an enormous and expensive government safety net.” He then goes on to describe the 70 welfare or anti-poverty programs operated by the federal government and to claim that $910 billion was spent on these programs in 2011 (which comes to about $9000 for each lower-income American, according to Rector).

Rector panders to his audience to create fear that Obama will continue to increase spending on welfare, spending that “the poor” actually don’t need: “of course, it is not unreasonable for welfare spending to rise during a recession. But the big secret is that, under Obama’s budget plans, this spending will not go back down when the recession ends.” Rector projects that by 2017, the U.S. will spend two dollars on welfare for every dollar spent on national defense. Rector claims that taxpayers will bear the brunt of this spending.

In order to show why this spending is unnecessary, Rector then launches into an attack on lower-income Americans, to demonstrate that they are not actually “poor” according to the traditional definition. Here is a sample of Rector’s argument:

“Last year the Census Bureau reported that 46 million Americans were poor.  For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide one’s family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. However, only a small number of the millions classified as “poor” by the government fit that description. Although real material hardship does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.

Here are some facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

•    80 percent of poor households have air conditioning.
•    Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
•    Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
•    Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
•    43 percent have Internet access.
•    One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television.
•    One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
•    More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

Although the mainstream media spread alarming stories about widespread hunger in the nation, in reality most of the poor do not experience hunger or food shortages. The U.S. Department of Agriculture tells us that 96 percent of poor parents report their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they couldn’t afford food.”

So, according to Rector, it is the media’s fault that we think we have a poverty “crisis,” because even the lowest-income Americans are not suffering too much. Rector blames the welfare system for destroying the desire to find employment, and he blames the decline of marriage for child poverty (based upon a stereotypical notion that single parenthood inevitably leads to poverty). He believes that a “proactive campaign” should be launched to restore marriage across America. This leaves me to ask, is being able to purchase (relatively inexpensive) material items the only way to measure poverty and wealth? What about access to health care, a living wage, and living without debt? These factors are never considered in Rector's analysis.

My difficulties with this text:

I have a diffiulty “making meaning” of this text because I fundamentally disagree with Rector’s premises that having material possessions means that poverty does not exist, and that marriage inevitably alleviates poverty. I also disagree that receiving welfare benefits destroys a desire to find work, or that marriage would increase as a result of a political campaign. I think this difficulty has to do with the general repertoire of the text (its conservative, anti-government point of view) and my own general repertoire (very liberal, a supporter of the Green Party, and critical of corporate capitalism). So before even reading Rector’s “facts,” I knew that I would most likely not agree with them, since I usually disagree with other reports and “research” on the Heritage Foundation’s website (although I have found the website useful for providing diverse perspectives in the classroom). I resent that Rector purports to be a valid scholar, but uses his research to promote biased and partisan ideas.

I think the fundamental point of disagreement is that Rector opposes government’s attempts to help those in need, while I believe we should have a social safety net. Moreover, I know from personal observations and my own research that welfare does not necessarily destroy the desire to work or to achieve upward mobility. See, for example, the recent column in The New York Times from a former welfare recipient:

I Was a Welfare Mother

I’m not entirely sure how to overcome this difficulty, since I admittedly have a bias against most of the views promoted by the Heritage Foundation. One strategy for overcoming it might be to examine the underlying assumptions that I bring to the issue, and that Rector brings to it, and to try to understand the motivations and assumptions behind Rector’s argument. Maybe he wants every American to be self-sufficient, independent, and to create their own opportunities? Yet this just doesn’t seem realistic in a world where systemic inequalities and discrimination continue to play a role in who succeeds and who falls behind. So I guess it’s hard for me to completely overcome my bias since I don’t think Rector is seeing the world in a realistic (or humanitarian) way.

I also resist embracing this article because I think Rector lacks a basic empathy for human suffering, and this seems to point to a deeper failure of morality that I can't quite accept. It reminds me of Mitt Romney's comment about the "47%" of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes (and, in fact, Rector happens to be the Romney campaign's main advisor on welfare!); both approaches reveal a dismissive perspective of the "have-nots" and a lack of willingness to help those in need.

Week 6: Writing-to-read and Reading-to-write activities for our group's article

Teaching the Article:

Who Needs Marriage? A Changing Institution

Objectives: Have students connect and relate their own perspectives to the primary text and to related supplementary texts, so that they become aware of the relationship between their own responses and the sociocultural influences that shape perceptions of marriage and inequality. Guided by McCormick's idea that "it is only when students begin to see that their subjectivities are part of a larger cultural framework that they can develop the skills necessary to evaluate critically the particular positions they take up" (171), our unit will emphasize the socioeconomic context for marriage today. In doing so, we can encourage students to develop a deeper perspective on the broader topic and to critically explore and write about their own responses to it.

Before Reading:

• Prereading: Have a class discussion to activate schema related to students’ views of marriage, and students’ views of the socioeconomic status of married and unmarried people: ask key questions, free-write, and discuss. 

• Previewing: Look over the article and predict, based on the title and first few paragraphs, what it will be about and what it will argue.

• KWL+: Establish questions that you would like to have answered as you read the article, based on your preview of it.

During Reading: 

• Annotate the article as you read; in class, groups can annotate one passage together and translate their annotated passage into a paragraph (moves students from reading to writing stages).

• Keep a dialectical journal that records and responds to quotes. Look for contradictions within the article (based on McCormick) and try to assess why these contradictions exist or what they demonstrate about our society.

•  Fill out a graphic organizer that presents key themes from the reading (themes could be: marriage today versus in the past; socioeconomic inequality and marriage; marriage and the American Dream). Then come up with a thesis statement that synthesizes 2 or 3 of these themes, which you can use in your essay.

After Reading: 

• Reflect on what you read and your annotations; make inferences based on them. After reflecting on the issues raised by the article, identify 2-3 new (yet related) topics that you would like to read about and find 1-2 articles on these topics through your own research ("activate new reading"). 

• We can also assign related reading materials, asking students to compare the Time article with a recent case study showing the socioeconomic inequality that exists between single-parent and married families: Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do'. I also think that expanding the debate by incorporating both right-wing and liberal perspectives could be useful. See: Marriage Reduces Child Poverty (Heritage Foundation) and Marriage is not antidote to poverty (CNN)

• Class discussion: does your view of marriage match the dominant views discussed in the article? Why or why not? Does your view of/experience with marriage correspond with society’s dominant views of marriage? (brings together Expressivist and Sociocultural models)

• Synthesize key themes and develop a thesis statement based on these themes. Use evidence from your own views/experiences as well as evidence from the articles you researched and the primary text to support a thesis that synthesizes these ideas.