Summary Response to “Other Voices, Other Rooms”
In the essay, “Other Voices, Other Rooms” from Inquiry to Academic Writing, Gerald Graff argues that students learn things differently from class to class and are not taught to use information from one class in another. This is a problem especially in higher education today because there is such a large gap from professor to professor. Although the disagreement from one subject to the next may seem like a problem to some, if there were no disagreements, nothing would be worth learning. While these problems may occur, they are essential in the evolvement of education. Without these disagreements there would not be any search for more information to solve the problems. Also, students would not be motivated to continue to learn. The disagreements between the two are what seem to confuse students, but what confuses them more is how the education system is set up. Students must learn to make
…show more content…
connections between these ideas and apply them to other things outside of the classroom. Graf’s essay does a good job of explaining this. Graff starts off with an example about students have that two classes in which the two professors contradict each other, but they do no care because they only want to get a good grade.
They are worried about offending their professors, so they just write to what they want to hear. This is not the professors fault, but rather the way that they system is set up is to be at fault. The system that is in place now is only a one way conversation directed towards the students, where they are not aloud to have an opinion of their own outside from what the professor believes. This problem gets worse because some students come to school with the skills to summarize arguments, but when they start to just give the professors what they want to hear without their personal opinion, they become uninterested on the ideas of what they are learning. They also can get confused when different professors use different terminology for the same ideas. Students fail to notice this due to the fact that they are only focusing on one course at a
time. Students fail to argue the above differences with their professors because their classrooms protect the professors. Students will go from believing one thing in once class to the complete opposite in another class because they are too focused on writing to the beliefs of the specific professor for the course. Graff provides a specific example from when he was in school about the fact that he was so focused on what was going on in each class separately that he did not realize his professors had complete opposite viewpoints. He further questions why they had different viewpoints and realized that they had to because of what their specific field and time era called for. For things to be learned they must be contrasted and compared to other things in order to seem real. Ideas must be separated amongst their contents, but this separation must not stop students from making connections between them. Criticism is what makes things progress, and with out it there would be nothing to dispute. Another problem with today is that there is controversy over what controversy is, which adds to the confusion. Along with the confusion of controversy, there is confusion of with communities that are disconnected. The idea of what is controversial and what is not changes form one community to the next. Graf goes on to explain Thomas S. Kuhn’s “paradigm shift” and how it continues to cause controversy this day between scientist and literary theorist. While arguing this, they fail to leave out how students might feel when they are confused and stuck between the two. He specifically gives an example that in sociology it is normal to write in the passive voice, but English professors refuse it. They also get confused on what they need to remember because they get a curriculum overload, and then they do not recognize what some things are in different classes because they are the same thing. Graf compares it to baseball and all the different positions, but with out them all together the game would not go on. This example can be compared to standard curriculum, but each student must make their intellectual experience their own. The purpose of Graf’s reading is to inform students on what is happening in their education. Graf’s tone is more informal because it is written to today’s students and people who were students before. He argues that the way that the education system is set up holds students back from making connections from class to class. Although Graf’s point on how the system holds students back from making connections, then why do students go from one grade level to the next? Isn’t the point of learning to add on to previous knowledge? Understandably, it does get confusing when teachers use different jargon from one class to the next, but as students it is their job to notice these things if they truly do understand the material. Ignoring the fact that students are only giving their teachers what they want in order to get a good grade is what is holding back this system. Graf is assuming that this is what is holding students back along with the fact that the lack of common vocabulary used throughout classes. Agreeably, this is a valid reason for students to not care if their opinions in one class differ from their opinions in another. To fix this, students should be graded on their opinion and if they can back it up, rather than just validating the professor’s opinion. Graf tries to influence his readers by giving several examples of how students struggle from class to class not knowing that they are in disagreement with themselves from one class to the next. He also provides examples of how students are not making connections from one class to the next. He does this to make the reader reflect on their education careers and to make them notice if maybe they are doing it as well. Graf explains the education system and it’s problems in the essay, but it becomes unclear because he writes in a repetitive manner. Concluding from this work, Graf wants the reader to notice what is wrong with the way the education system is set up, so that the readers can go out and fix it if they are encountering the same things in their classrooms. Graf’s points of how students are not making connections in the classroom is proof that the education system is set up to prevent this. Instead of criticizing the professors, he wants the students to start realizing it on their own. He understands that the classroom protects the professor, and without that the professors would not teach to their opinions. Although there seems to be a problem when teachers disagree, without those disagreements nothing would be worth learning. Graf provides several examples on how students are not making connections, but again points out the facts that students need to make them themselves in order to complete their educational experience. This essay shows the problems with the education system today and gives examples of them, but it is up to the students and professors to work together to fix them.
Benton uses the article to persuade educators and professors not to give up on the students and to try to protect those students that do want to learn: “I have become convinced that professors -- particularly the ones with tenure -- need to find ways to give remedial attention to student behavior, just as they have long done for students who cannot read or write well enough to succeed at college.” Furthermore, the article evaluates the problems and gets to the real cause of the lack of care and
In her article, “Lecture Me. Really”, Molly Worthen addresses the issue college students know all too well: how to lecture properly. Published in the New York Times, Worthen writes a passionate article about lecturing but from the perspective of a professor. Worthen presents the idea that lecturing, although some may think ineffective in the classroom, is a way to truly challenge and engage students into critically thinking. Worth dictates this idea with an excellent build up logical argument but lacks the proper evidence to support her claims creating a faulty argument.
However, their critical analysis of FYW and strong points for other teaching methods, one’s takeaway from the article is the question, “why even teach FYW”? It’s evident that content and context are the key points in academic writing, so why then do we even make the FYW a mandatory class? A student doesn’t need a semester to understand what content is, for some they already understand what it is, and for those who don’t they should still be able to learn it, in a week. The misconception of writing being universal is very true, but for a student to improve on one’s writing, the easiest solution is to have him or she participate in that discipline. In a realistic world, the more probable solution to most of the problems Down and Wardle bring up is eliminate the course and replace it with a class that allows a student to see and understand the writing in their field without the repercussion of grades. Thus students get more experience within their field and get to learn firsthand what academic writing in their discipline consist
In his closing remarks, Graff once again makes a slight stumble. He begins his final paragraph with, “If I am right, then schools and colleges are missing an opportunity when they do not encourage students to take their nonacademic interests as objects of academic study” (386). Using the words “If I am right” shows uncertainty and might hurt his credibility with some readers. Luckily, Graff’s argument and credibility remains intact. Since, the reader will most likely pause and reaffirm, to themselves, that Graff is indeed right.
In Patricia Limerick’s article “Dancing with Professors”, she argues the problems that college students must face in the present regarding writing. Essays are daunting to most college students, and given the typical lengths of college papers, students are not motivated to write the assigned essays. One of the major arguments in Limerick’s article is how “It is, in truth, difficult to persuade students to write well when they find so few good examples in their assigned reading.” To college students, this argument is true with most of their ...
...ild, when he would hide and daydream, up until his first years of college, when he would avoid areas that were difficult, the author recognized that there was important link between challenging the student on a meaningful level and the degree to which the student eventually produced. “I felt stupid telling them I was… well – stupid.” (Rose 43) Here, Rose shows an example of how poor preparation and low standards in the classroom can make a student feel inadequate. Indeed, one can see how many things seemingly unrelated do affect a student’s ability to learn.
In an Amazon.co.uk interview titled “Magic, Mystery and Mayhem: An Interview with J.K. Rowling,” when asked about the way she came up with the names of characters in her books, she replied, “I invented some of the names in the Harry books, but I also collect strange names. I've gotten them from medieval saints, maps, dictionaries, plants, war memorials, and people I've met!” J.K. Rowling chose these names for a reason based on the deeper meanings behind every character's name and the way they relate to their roles and personalities. In Octavia E. Butler's short story “Speech Sounds”, Rye and Obsidian were the names she chose for her characters. Rye, the name of the main protagonist which symbolizes home and earth yearns to reconnect with her family and to rebuild a family of her own while Obsidian, the supporting character, is named after a type of lava stone, which is believed to contain magical properties that “absorbs and destroys negative energy such as anger, criticism, and fear” (Zagata). The names of the characters have two purposes: to describe the character's role and personality, and to give them an identity.
They must form lessons that should aid students in understanding composition, definitions, transition words, and symbolism. There is no denying the significance these lectures bring; however, for some students, it is not enough to repetitively apply the mentioned rules to discussions they find disinterest in, deciding for themselves unwilling to participate in the conversation teachers beg for students to join. As mentioned, Fish proclaims that to diverge from teaching subject matter any other way that is not specifically academic, deviates too much and distracts from the correct process of intellectual thought. In his The New York Times piece, "What Should Colleges Teach?", Fish states his stance expressing one must "teach the subject matter" alone and not to "adulterate it with substitutes". He continues praising "the virtue of imitation," asking students to "reproduce [great author's] forms with a different content". Already, Fish demands from students derivative mimicry in which they must glean an understanding of another's process. I echo Fish's own question: "How can [one] maintain... that there is only one way to teach writing?" As students, we desire to express ourselves, and to follow the principles Fish speaks of, to "[repeat] over and over again in the same stylized motions", confines us from discovering the beauty and potential writing can bring. Rather, students are taught we must so closely follow fastidious rules and decorative wording, teaching English may as well, as Fish writes, "make students fear that they are walking through a minefield of error," and to use such a method makes students believe to write any other way will cause them to "step on something that will wound them", the odds of students learning anything are diminished (Stanley Fish, "What Should
...o think for themselves. He believes that students will become more active and informed citizens if they are brought up to think for themselves (155). Gatto’s proposed solutions can be found successfully applied in Mike Rose’s essay. In his essay he describes the mediocre education he received while on the vocational track. Mike’s future was looking rather grim until he came under the instruction of Jack MacFarland. This man was a wise and enthusiastic teacher who challenged students academically. He encouraged and inspired students to read, to be proactive in their classes, and to think for themselves. His classes were engaging and the students were interested in his teachings (165-167). The fact that the same solutions that Gatto proposed in his essay was successful applied elsewhere proves that teaching practices need and can to change for the better.
Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. K. (2009). The Growing College Gap. "They say/I say": the moves that matter in academic writing : with readings (p. 379). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Co-author of “They Say/I Say” handbook, Gerald Graff, analyzes in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” that “street smarts” can be used for more efficient learning and can be a valuable tool to train students to “get hooked on reading and writing” (Graff 204). Graff’s purpose is to portray to his audience that knowing more about cars, TV, fashion, and etc. than “academic work” is not the detriment to the learning process that colleges and schools can see it to be (198). This knowledge can be an important teaching assistant and can facilitate the grasping of new concepts and help to prepare students to expand their interests and write with better quality in the future. Graff clarifies his reasoning by indicating, “Give me the student anytime who writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis of an issue in Source over the student who writes a life-less explication of Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology” (205). Graff adopts a jovial tone to lure in his readers and describe how this overlooked intelligence can spark a passion in students to become interested in formal and academic topics. He uses ethos, pathos, and logos to establish his credibility, appeal emotionally to his readers, and appeal to logic by makes claims, providing evidence, and backing his statements up with reasoning.
The answer is simple. More students than ever before in history are attending college, and the standards that once applied, such as during my grandfather's era, no longer do. College students no longer have to master basic writing skills in order to be accepted by the best universities, let alone open door schools that cater to the needs of modestly literate high school graduates. In short, many college students are incapable of writing well enough to make convincing arguments, let alone well-researched, documented term papers. Freshman college students do not represent an academically elite body of students any longer. Freshman college students today are made up in large part of yesterday's unskilled laborers. I venture to guess that most of my fellow college students would have been sent out by their parents to lives of hard labor had they lived seventy-five years ago. Today, they are sent to college as a prerequisite to working in just about any field, even those that don't genuinely rely upon the skills one might gain in a traditional liberal arts and sciences education.
Whether it’s the students, professors, staff members, etc. in a university setting everybody uses writing. Writing, especially in college, is assigned to teach you the skills necessary to appropriately communicate in the workplace and in classrooms by using critical thinking. In order to obtain these skills you must practice, being asked to write different assignments about different situations is good practice. Sometimes you will have teachers who will be unclear with what their expectations from you are. Some will tell you what they want you to read, what to think about while reading, how they want your paper to be organized, etc. There will be some teachers that will simply just ask you a general question, ask you to write about it, and just see where you go with it, giving you your own rubric to go off of. Sometimes your teacher will define assignments and topics for you and at other times ask you to do the defining. It is important that you are able to think critically in situations like these. If you have a teacher that ...
In conclusion, education is broader than just falling into what the contemporary school system has to offer. Both Gatto and Graff proved this by explain how conforming students to certain perspectives of education limits their potential in other educational branches that interest the students. Also, curricula should bring a balance between making a school a place for obtaining information, and accommodating the educational demands for each individual student. It is imperative to understand that reforming the academic system, by fine-tuning schools to have its students learn what exactly they are interested in, will lead to having students accessing their full intellectual potential.
John W. Gardner said, “Much education today is monumentally ineffective. All too often we are giving young people cut flowers when we should be teaching them to grow their own plants.” Education today is very ineffective. It is in an in between phase of the ways of old and a time of complete reform. The main issue is that people often lose sight of why the education system should even be reformed. It shouldn’t be reformed because “that’s what everyone else is doing.” It needs to be reformed to bridge the gap for the students who have a different learning style. It should be reformed to expand knowledge for students. Education reform can have good and bad effects. Because the education system is very complex, educators are being faced with changes and they must decide what is best for students.