Marissa Greenberg
English
 Whereas traditional
education ascribes to the “three Rs,” my pedagogical method
consists of “three Cs”—Challenge, Continuity, and
exChange. Through these three Cs, I create a variety of conditions
under which students must think and write critically. In sum,
I provide opportunities for students to tone the mental muscles they
already have and to build those that have atrophied. Indeed,
I use these three Cs not only to teach the core concepts of literary
scholarship and composition but also to establish discursive skills
that have value throughout my students’ academic careers.
In teaching literature and composition, I challenge students to approach
texts from a variety of angles. Frequently this challenge takes
the form of writing assignments other than formal essays: short
response papers, critiques of secondary scholarship, historical annotations,
creative writing. When students are invited to read and respond
to texts in seemingly non-conventional ways, the types of queries
they pose and the answers they consider shift, and often become more
complex. In my current Writing Seminar in Drama course, for
example, students attended a live performance. Before going
to see the play, we discussed the distinction between theater review
and literary analysis. After viewing the performance, students
composed their own reviews, which they posted on the class’s
online discussion board for their peers to read. Through these
reviews, students began to engage the text on a new level. In
particular, questions of character assumed profound significance.
The interpretation of character ceased to be an abstract concern,
a mere intellectual exercise, and became the source of heated debate.
This heightened level of discourse found its way into students’
formal essays, many of which queried the differences and overlaps
between dramatic text and performance.
As this example suggests, I challenge students to approach literature
from a multiplicity of perspectives within a larger continuity.
I make these links palpable to students in two ways. First,
I begin each class with a review of what students have been writing
and discussing and then I outline how these activities relate to our
goals for that day. I have found that this exercise provides
Penn’s busy students with a needed sense of connectedness and
progression. Second, I design formal essays that incorporate
the skills developed in previous, more informal assignments.
Writing becomes a continuous process not simply in the familiar terms
of brainstorming, drafting, and revision; it assumes the form of “project”—an
evolving and composite text. As project, literary analysis ceases
to be a uniform and monolithic genre that students must attempt to
recreate and becomes a forum for their individual interests, strengths,
and styles.
The concept of project also encompasses the exChange that contributes
to intellectual growth. Classroom discussion represents that
most significant mode of exchange I utilize. Often part of continuous
lines of inquiry, beginning with in-class writing, group work, or
at-home assignments, discussion allows students to engage each another’s
ideas, offer counterarguments as well as supporting evidence, and
ultimately develop a complex web of interpretation. My role
in this exchange is frequently overt. As facilitator and guide,
I challenge students to view texts through a range of critical lenses.
For example, I may pressure a discussion about word choice by raising
the problem of performance. Just as importantly, I provide feedback
on every assignment and hold frequent one-on-one conferences.
Having benefited from the generosity of professors who have given
me their time in order to develop my own thinking and writing, I believe
firmly that it is my responsibility to invest my energies in my students’
intellectual growth.
|
|
