Fellow classmates! How are ‘ya?
Are your brains fully-cooked from this week’s reading? Mine is. I’m glad this
is our last one and must admit that although, a lot was learned from these
readings; it’s definitely time to chill-out with this stuff.
Our first night of class
started with a discussion about exposition. “What is exposition?” Cheryl asked.
I remember our discussion leading to some consensus that clear, simple,
straight-forward writing is best. And that to fully understand what the writer
is trying to communicate is probably the overall goal in writing. This is
exactly what Reddick proposes is the purpose for expository writing, to
communicate new information from a text that the reader will understand.
I can’t help from feeling the
need to try and summarize Reddick. I admit this is over the top but I want to
try something here. I will attempt to explain my understanding of the reading
with good ‘ol fashioned bullet-points and include my questions at the end.
Key
writer = interpreter
reader = student
teacher = analyst
subject = discourse
- Pg211: The concept of expository texts is challenged. Does a true expository text exist?
- Pg212: Texts seem to suffer the need for the reader to already have some previous knowledge of the subject or its point is lost.
- Pg213: In order for a text to fulfill its goal it must take form of some recognizable object for the reader.
- Pgs214-215: The writer and reader must relate to each other’s perception of reality in order to move forward in another area of explanation. Some object of reference must be established, perhaps something from everyday normal life, in order to communicate.
- Example: Markels’ paragraph shows how referencing an object can be used to convey an understanding.
- John likes Columbus. He likes its low inflation rate and its very low crime rate. He enjoys its many foreign food stores. He likes the city's extensive park system. Finally, he likes the cultural and sporting events that the city provides.
- Pgs216-218: A text does a lot to confirm the writers own understanding of the subject but what about the reader? The reader must already have some connection with the writer in order for information to be exchanged. Example: Spivak’s piece on the human psyche may only be understandable to the reader if they had previously read Derrida, Lacan and Freud.
- Pgs219-220: Our main experience with an expository text comes from scholastic textbooks. These texts must be accompanied by the ‘mastery’ of the teacher or the intended lesson is lost. The text cannot deliver the information on its own. It must come with an interpreter who essentially has the same knowledge as the writer.
- Conclusion: An ideal scenario where the teacher and writer share the exact same knowledge of a subject is probably not possible. An expository text will always be somewhat vague. Thus, to learn from a text is not exact. This type of academia is perpetual.
- (Reddick)
How do you feel about learning
from a textbook? How much can be learned about a subject from reading?
Are the traditional ways of
teaching using texts flawed? Outdated? Better than ever?
Is there such thing as a
non-biased expository text? Are texts becoming more narrative?
Does postmodernism
deconstruction kill expository discourse?
Reddick, R.J. "English Expository
Discourse." (1992).
First comment :) Yes, my brain is fried, but not completely to a point of death. As I read Reddick, the definition of expository writing shifted slightly. It is still what we talked about on the first day of class--writing that informs. However, one of the things I found interesting is Reddick's explanation of structure; expository writing is always going to be structured vaguely, meaning that there is no pretty template for expository writing that we can follow. Now, with that vagueness, it becomes difficult then to even recognize expository writing since we aren't really looking for any structural or formatting clues. Basically, at this point to me, expository writing can be pretty much anything you want it to be.
ReplyDeleteAs for textbooks, I think they are tools. However, I don't think they should be considered the primary tools and references leading students to any sort of absolute truth on a given subject. We can use them, yes, but not rely 100% on them.
"How do you feel about learning from a textbook?"
ReplyDeleteAs Aleks said, a textbook is a tool. One of many that students should use in learning about a new topic. As to learning a subject from reading, I would say that reading is one of the primary ways of learning about a new subject (e.g. our theory of exposition class, history classes, English classes), interactive learning being secondary (e.g. discussions such as this, field trips to battlefields and museums, acting out a scene). Which brings us to your second set of questions: "Are the traditional ways of teaching using texts flawed? Outdated? Better than ever?" The traditional ways of teaching using texts is flawed in that it only gives one person's interpretation of the material being studied; also, certain texts for science classes or history, unless updated every year with the latest findings, can be dated in the concepts/ideas that are stated within. If teaching could be more interactive in nature, maybe through some of the ways listed above, subject matter covered in the classroom or out in the real world could be more up-to-date.
"Is there such thing as a non-biased expository text? Are texts becoming more narrative?"
I would say that there is no such a thing as a non-biased expository text, particularly with history textbooks in mind. We tell world history from our point of view, not another country's point of view. In U.S. history, "history is written by the victors." I don't know about anyone else, but I've only seen the Civil War told from the Union's point of view. That being said, the way in which subject matter is taught could geographically depend on where students are located.
"Does postmodernism deconstruction kill expository discourse?" No, it does not. In fact, I would say that postmodernism deconstruction encourages expository discourse. What deconstruction breaks apart, expository discourse comes back with the effort to try and explain further.
writerdaily and M. Mercer make a great point in identifying textbooks as tools. While I do enjoy learning by reading (not just by reading textbooks, but academic journals, news articles, blog posts(!), etc.), I learn far more by discussing what I've read. I am generally quiet in the classroom, but I really enjoy hearing my classmates' unique perspectives. Our online discussions and summaries/responses give me an opportunity to comfortably share my interpretations. Texts are a launching point for constructing new knowledge.
ReplyDeleteYes, my brain is overcooked and just about burning. End of the semester is always a lot of fun...
ReplyDeleteAnyway,I think your key is pretty accurate and I'm glad you chose to break it down that way. I often feel I need a translation of all this stuff.
Ok, now to answer some of your questions:
How do you feel about learning from a textbook? How much can be learned about a subject from reading?
-Personally, I am not a fan of textbooks. A lot of them don't leave much room for expansion-they seem too definitive and narrow. Sure, hypothetically speaking someone could probably educate themselves by reading a bunch of textbooks without ever entering a classroom; but I think learning is so much more than just reading. Learning is about taking a text and dissecting, modifying, challenging it, etc.
Are the traditional ways of teaching using texts flawed? Outdated? Better than ever?
-I would say texts are still helpful in some ways, but I would agree with Aleks that students cannot wholly rely on them. Students should use them merely as a basis. I think it's important to be proactive with the subject at hand-in other words, teachers should encourage their students to show then what they've learned rather than tell them, if that makes sense. Blogging is a step in that direction I suppose!
This is good. I really feel like we are all on the same page here.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to academia, an expository text (a textbook) is useless with out discussion. Ideally, this discussion is lead by someone (a teacher) who has a closer level of knowledge of the subject.
I believe a lot of writers get very close to an almost perfect non-biased fully informative text but it will never be bullet-proof. I guess it's just like any other thing. It has 'gray area'.
I love learning from textbooks. I actually learn better from textbooks and from traditional ways of teaching. I am the type of learner who goes by the book. Anything else, I feel a bit out of place and sometimes a little resentful towards my teacher. It might be because I am a very passive person, but I like being told what to do in the books and by the teachers. I will only rebel if the textbooks and the teachers are not relevant to the subject or are substandard. I do believe that the old way of using texts are getting outdated because teachers are competing for our attention with technology, and teachers really can’t win against cell phones and social media. I feel like we’ll always see biased expository text because it’s the nature of our world. I don’t think anyone writes for objective purposes; written work is done for subjective reasons, whether the writer wanted to do it or not. As for postmodernism deconstruction, it’s not going to kill anything while people are not really accepting of its non-definitive, non-purpose, nothingness it claims to be (or does not).
ReplyDelete