Since the purpose of this course is to educate us as possible future educators, I feel that, for me, it is important to view these articles as tools for my future classroom, and Sidler's genetic analysis made me feel that it might be important to allow students to choose their own reading material (such as articles/short stories relating to their interests--with limitations, of course--or relating to their choices for professional majors) and then educate them on how to properly argue for or against what they have read. I believe that the argument is the key, not the subject matter. There are ethical, logical and even emotional arguments in any field that a student can enter into. The key is to teach them which argument will assist them the most in what they wish to accomplish and to give them the tools to make that argument.
Delving into the other part of the article was a little more difficult. Much of what Sidler was saying seemed irrelevant to anything but proving that genetic research is like composition, but this could be said for so many fields, especially of research, and much of his assertions (so he admitted) seemed to be choices on the part of the author and his contemporaries to view scientific research (both in genetics and computers) as parallels to the American English language(135).
Sidler admits: "This discussion may sound futuristic, irrelevant and maybe a little bit wacky, especially in the context of teaching composition" (138), and I agree. One of the biggest problems that I had with the M. Night Shyamalan movie Signs is that the lessons and themes in the movie could have easily been translated into a non-alien context, because the movie was more about those lessons (and the coincidences that led to some of them), than about the impact of the aliens in the world. This article could have easily taught its compositional lessons in another context.
I am very interested in science, especially genes, and yet I still had a difficult time swallowing this article within the context of composition.
Sidler's point (that the future is coming, and it includes cyborgs!) worked against her thesis: that educators must prepare for this eventuality. It's absurd. Forget about how they should prepare.... WHY should they prepare? Cyborgs won't need teachers!
ReplyDeleteReading your post, I wonder how cyborgs will respond to human literature of the past. Will they read it with a sense of nostalgia, will they dismiss it as the scribblings of apes, or will they store it away in archives as artifacts of the past? Whatever they do with our literature, they will do it in the cyberspace of their "hive-mind."
I want to be a cyborg. Now.
I like your idea of using different types of writing to teach your "future cyborg students". That's what teaching Language Arts/English is all about. I have had and have taught with teachers similar to your 122 professor and did not learn much of anything except how to please him/her for a grade or professional standing. I also like how you reference 'Signs' and the lessons learned. You could also look at his other two movies that portray the same theme-'The Villiage' and 'The Happening'. What we do now impacts our future causing lessons to be learned.
ReplyDeleteWhat will education look like in the future? I don't know. But teachers need to look at how to teach the skills, not the content, to succeed in a world where science will dominate and culture will unwillingly follow.
I also like your point about the huge variety of available text.
ReplyDeleteWhile I admit I had never seriously considered moving outside of Literature for primary texts in my classroom, I do allow students to select their own subject matter and texts as much as possible. Teaching English in the public schools is at least a little bit different, because unlike a pure composition course it IS my job to teach literature as well. However, as I've often remarked to my (other) colleagues, I could teach these skills with any text at all provided I'm given the time to familiarize myself with it.