I Am the Joe Dimaggio of Conferencing (Or Rather, the Cal Ripken)

I have found that holding individual conferences concerning the major papers is something that suits me. It's easier to interact on a one-on-one level with each student than to lecture to the room. I'm not saying that I think that I can't do the latter. I just think the former is easier for me. What I find great about conferencing is that I can address the things that get lost to the students in the lecture setting. For those in the office that have seen me work, I can go for quite a long time throughout the day, repeating the same bits of advice or addressing the multitude of concerns the students harbor, huh? The thing that I realize about this is that I find that I can connect to the students easier when I have their undivided attention. I think it is much easier for them to lose themselves to the crowd, as DeLillo would so aptly suggest. When the crowd is apprehensive and pensive, so are the individual students. Think about it: Their fear cripples them from responding to questions asked to the class at large because they don't want to "look stupid if they say something wrong." So, I determined that after the break, I would have a little sit down with both of my 110 classes to air out any concerns they may have and to explain to them my mission in teaching, my philosophies, and how I perceive their actions. I wanted to invite them to speak freely about their perceptions, as well, so that I may address them in front of everyone, alleviating those who scared to interact from their concerns and still getting my message across to everyone as a whole.

I began the class by bringing in a revised copy of the schedule and explaining why I made the changes that were made (basically, the four days my classes have missed due to inclement weather put me in a bind in terms of jamming in everything that I wanted to teach for the semester). I explained that I didn't want to be unfair to them to expect them to have to do so much work without the opportunity of adequate instruction, and I feel they received that message well. I explained one of the assignments that I wanted them to complete as a precursor to the position paper and their class "debate." Then I laid it on them. "Let's take this moment to kick back, relax, and discuss how the class has been operating thus far this semester," I told them. I even scooted my chair back and kicked my feet up on the desk. I figured that if I am asking them to get comfortable, I may as well do so. I opened up the discussion by addressing my perceptions of how they have viewed the class, the reasons why I felt they were so reluctant to participate, and then I invited them at any moment to confirm or deny anything that I was saying. Wanting the students to participate in the discussion and verbally opening the door to it (and opening the door to personal criticism on our behalf) are two different things. What I was trying to convey was that I was not wanting to focus on the things that I saw them doing "wrong" but the things that I saw myself doing wrong, as well.

Let me tell you, when I admitted to my own deficiencies and expectations in front of them, I saw head nods, smiles, students whispering to other students and reacting with smiles...you name it. I told them straight up that I saw them reacting to what I said in the way I just described it in this blog and that shows me two things: One, I have not been communicating to them my concerns in a proper fashion, and two, they have not been communicating to me the things that have troubled them. Once I revealed this to them, they were dumbfounded.

"Pretty trippy, huh? A class based upon learning to become better communicators in writing has not been communicating effectively enough with each other AND the teacher to learn," I added. "So where do we go from here?"

Of course, there was silence. So I continued, "Allow me the opportunity to share my teaching philosophies with you and reveal the reasons why I ask you to do the things we do in class. Allow me the opportunity to communicate with you what I expect you to get out of this class and why I expect it. Is that fair?"

They nodded their heads and some said, "Sure."

I'll summarize here to spare you the boring details, but basically, I explained to them that I mostly (not entirely) bought into the Social Constructivist school of thought and explained to that exactly what that was. When I mentioned the words, a lot of them looked lost; so, I knew I had to explain. But more importantly, I explained to them exactly why I believed this to be a good model for teaching writing. I explained them that I didn't want them to be a bunch of my clones running around in this world after the class was over, writing and regurgitating my view of the world--or even my viewpoint of anything in general. Instead, I only aimed to challenge them to think for themselves, to not accept every single thing that they encounter as truth--and this didn't mean that they had to stop believing whatever they currently believed. Further, I explained that my main goal for them was to be better communicators in writing, but that they had to learn how to think about what they trying to communicate before they attempted to do so.

Inherently, I feel that this is the first step to being a better writer, that one must be "mindful" (to steal a word from Ben's repertoire) of their thoughts before they attempt to convey them. After all, as writers, aren't we attempting to connect with other humans beings first and then convey our message second. How can you ever communicate with someone if you don't first have their attention? This was one of the reasons why my class and I were unable to accomplish our goals. I explained to them, this is what I am doing now: Getting their attention. Continuing the lecture, I told them that once you can get your readers attention, then you must maintain it. And this is where clarity, concision, being mindful of your message and you the way your audience will receive it all come into play. This is where the connection is established and this is what you want to work at improving. I connected this to Stauss's article published in the Standard about how women need not go to school and should only marry rich, blah blah blah. Some of you may have already read this from the quote board. The longest discussion that we've had all semester followed. I must admit, I was very happy. Finally, we had connected and I'm hopeful for the rest of the semester, although part of me maintains skepticism (and I'm trying to squash that part).

So, I've done nothing but complain this whole semester about things that have gone wrong. Here's my chance to show something that went right and to dispel any assumptions that I am grouchy or tough-minded. I just want the best for my students, and to me, that means providing them with the tools to think and express themselves coherently. In the words of the greatest modern day philosopher, really all I want to ask is: "Can't we all just get along?"