AtD already on a syllabus

[terrance terrance]

I would add two, perhaps three more books. Students don't read enough. One 
of the reasons they have such a tough time with difficult texts. Also, 
discussions suffer because students don't read enough good books and because 
they have been crippled by theoretical approaches. Discussion, the loose 
kind, where students sit in small groupes and talk away about the book they 
are reading or have read and the more organized kind, say a fishbowl, can be 
quite productive if students read the books they are assigned and if they 
keep the theoretical bag tricks in the closet where it belongs. When 
students read a big book like GR or AtD, they should take tons of notes, use 
Cornell or a traditional reading journal or log or even the post-its. Then, 
they should sit and talk about the book. Move people around from group to 
group. First readings can't be wrong. Next, a fishbowl or socratic reading 
....and then some loose writing ...some very serious writing. Then a 
lecture. Then an exam.

Next book.

This is how we used to do it in EGL departments.
Today, students are all google-poop and theoretical blah blah.

How are they ever going to make sense of their tax returns?


>That's an awful lot of reading.  I think it's great that an academic class 
>takes on a novel that's new: English majors need to tackle things that 
>don't already have a thick crust of critical opinion.  But to assign three 
>other Pynchon novels almost ensures that students won't get a good 
>understanding of any of them.  My experience (as a student) has been that 
>discussion suffers when students are asked to read too much; a complex text 
>usually gets breezed through in only the most cursory fashion.

_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG