Aesthetics in the classroom

Aesthetics in the classroom

I would like to engage my student's in a way similar to Sara I want to get them thinking about what, exactly, art “is”. I think that the best way to get them to do this is not to read a bunch of aesthetic theory, but to have them take the first step in generating their own theoretical framework. I've been thinking about a series of assignments (or two linked assignments; I think continuity is important). The first one would be a review of a current album or film that they enjoy. The goals for this assignment would be relatively simple; here, we're looking for clear, precise, writing-simple description. I would hope that this would engage the students, because writing about something you like is almost as much fun as writing about yourself. This paper would be short, maybe just two pages. It would afford me a chance to work on writing issues before argumentation issues, and it would get students invested in a piece of writing.

The next assignment would ask them to formulate an argument; what constitutes art? They would be asked to consider, for example, if they think there is any meaningful difference between art and entertainment. Returning to whatever they reviewed for the first assignment, they would now be asked to write a persuasive essay where they argued whether, or not, the item they reviewed has artistic value. They would have to develop a set of criteria, and apply it via careful analysis. Here, students would be required to argue rhetorically via ethos, pathos, and logos. Judging from my experience in the writing lab, this approach works well for first-year composition students.

Girl Talk Assignments

So a few months ago, I was using StumbleUpon to literally stumble around the Internet when I came across a website called SoundCloud.com, where users can post their own mashups of songs for others to vote on. I listened for a bit, found a few new running songs, and then for some reason, I started to wonder how I could use the website to make an assignment for English 1000.

I know I'm not the first person to want to use music in a composition class. I think it takes away some of student's fear about writing...if they're writing about music, how could it be scary? So I'd like to take this idea and run with it. Rather than use SoundCloud, which can be unpredictable as far as what music is available, I decided to use Girl Talk because I know more of the DJ's personal history and could use it for the assignment.

So in theory, my assignment would involve a few parts. The first one involving a class period wherein we listen to a Girl Talk song, and discuss our initial reactions to it. Do the students like it? Why or why not? Then I would give a brief summary of how Gregg Gillis, the sole member of Girl Talk, uses the fair use rule to sample songs without being sued for infringement. I think this can create (hopefully) an interesting conversation when I ask the students the next question, which will be the focus of a persuasive paper: Is this art?

I think I'd first start out with this as a persuasive paper, given fairly early in the semester to help students get over their fear of writing. I'd like to stick with my idea that giving students creative assignments such as this  will yield to more engaged writing. The problem is that it's so subjective. I have no idea what my students will think, so I would most likely have to wait to feel out the class to see if this is an assignment that would be interesting.

Continuing With the Beats... Ethos, Pathos and Logos in Ginsberg's 'America'

Coincidentally, an idea I had about a possible assignment also concerns the Beats. The other day I was watching this Youtube video and was struck by how funny "America" seemed to be when performed by Ginsberg himself. I had always read this poem as a scathing attack on American consumerism and/or colonialism, to be read as provocative or acerbic but never overtly humorous. This experience seemed to lend itself to a reading of "America" using the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos. Rachel currently assigns a similar paper in which she has students respond to Bruce Springsteen's "Thunder Road" using these terms.

First, I would have my students read the poem in class (probably out loud, although the cursing is a matter I'll have to address). Then, I would assign a short free-writing assignment wherein everyone writes their initial reaction to the poem. Next, I would play this video and assign a second round of free-writing about their reaction to it. Throughout the following discussion we would examine how the ethos, pathos, and logos operated differently in each reading. A short essay (2-3 pages) based on this discussion would constitute the writing assignment. There are several advantages and disadvantages to this assignment, which are roughly as follows:

Advantages:
- Hearing an audience react so favorably to a canonical poem would (hopefully) lead some students to reevaluate their initial reactions, and find it at least somewhat interesting/fun instead of intimidating/boring.
- After applying ethos, pathos, and logos to this poem and seeing how each can act differently in different media, students will be able to apply those same concepts elsewhere.
- Students can write about themselves. Instead of an academic reading of the poem, they will be able to talk about how they reacted, why they reacted this way, whether they found the poem offensive, amusing, important, etc. No subjective reading is wrong as long as they ground their reasoning in the terms provided.

Disadvantages:
- I am of course betting on the assumption that most students will find the initial reading difficult or at least "academic" and the subsequent reading substantially different (although essays that argue against any differences between the two are valid as well).
- There are pedagogical difficulties associated with teaching literature that Rachel's assignment avoids. I will need to be very clear in my explanation that our purpose is not to uncover a "correct" or even literary interpretation of the poem.
- Grading. This is an aspect that I feel I will have difficulty with for most assignments, however. I would like to grade on the quality of the prose more than the complexity of the argument (leaning more toward Jonas' side of the scale).

Although it's unlikely that this specific assignment will make it onto my syllabus, it is likely that a similar assignment dealing with ethos, pathos, and logos will. This assignment has been particularly helpful to think about because it deals with two of my main concerns. First, I want to avoid assigning things based purely on my personal interest in the subject. And second, I want to make it clear to the students that learning how to write clear, logical prose is our ultimate goal, and not high-minded literary interpretation or mastery over specific "forms" or "types" of essays.

Writing assignment

For one of the writing assignments, I would like my students to use their personal experience to develop an argument. I think this essay will contain three parts. In the first part, they just narrate their own experience. It can be an event in the past, an important moment in the life, or first-hand experience. The second part will involve analyzing that personal experience. For example, why they think that event is important to them or what they learn from certain experiences. The third part is the most difficult one. Students have to situate their personal experience in a social context and explore one social issue. For example, a student may talk about her part-time job experience in the first part, and then she analyzes why she thinks she is being paid unfairly, and in the last part, she examines the social issue of the minimum wage. This will not be the first assignment, but probably the second or third one because the last part of the essay requires much effort (for example, finding outside resources) and involves critical analysis.

    I think the challenge I will face is how I explain this assignment (in my assignment sheet) in a very concrete and detailed way. Also, how I grade this kind of paper. Should the analyzing parts weigh more? I found that Rachel and Jonas describe very clearly and concretely in their assignment sheets what students should write and how they can achieve certain goals in the essay. They even write down what specific part of the essay will be graded (for example, citation). I think I have to think thoroughly before I make assignment sheets. For example, should I restrict the number of outside resources? Should I use several concrete examples to show how this assignment can be done? Should I also give them some essay questions to stimulate thoughts and make sure that they answer those questions in the essay? I hope that my assignment sheets can be as clear as possible but I don’t want to list a lot of rules that constrain students’ writing. So, I’ll need to think about how to construct my assignment sheets and what I should include in those assignment sheets.

Connecting Thinking and Writing

In their first major writing assignment of the semester, I’d like my students to analyze connections between the ways they learn and the ways they write. My goals in assigning such a paper are mainly to encourage students to think critically (and express those thoughts in writing) and to help them become more confident, competent writers. Because this assignment doesn’t require students to write a typical, thesis-driven paper, I’m hoping they’ll feel freer to concentrate on their ideas and will make some discoveries about their writing processes that will help them with future writing assignments.

To help students prepare for this paper, I’d like to talk with them both about their previous writing experiences and about what multiple intelligences are. As part of our discussions, I intend to have them answer the Interest and Writing Questions I reference in the assignment sheet. After they discuss their answers to these questions in class, possibly in groups, we’ll go over the writing assignment itself, making sure everyone understands what I’m asking of them.

Though I’m a bit concerned that my open-form assignment will frustrate students who’re looking for an exact description of how they should construct their paper, the hardest part is (as others have said) the grading. I’m afraid the criteria I’ve listed may be too vague and unhelpful, but I’m still undecided about my grading philosophy, so it’s hard to be more specific; I tend to lean toward rubrics, but am uncertain how to construct one for this assignment.

I Just Remembered William Blake Also Died in the Movie

I’ve been thinking a lot about creating assignments because I’ll most probably pass that speech test and teach next semester. About three weeks ago, I talked to my language partner (an assignment from my speech class) Maria who is a senior in International Business. She told me about her freshman composition experience – the instructor had them watch a whole semester of Hitchcock and Simpsons – and she loved it. I was inspired and immediately came up with the idea of letting my students watch all four films of Pirates of Caribbean and have them write four different kinds of essays in relation to them. But after playing with the idea for a week or so, I decided that I couldn’t handle it. Reason one, there’s too big a risk of turning the class into an entertainment. Two, I don’t have sufficient knowledge in film study to create intelligent assignments.

Instead of using four films, I think one is all I can manage. And instead of a blockbuster, a quieter and darker film like Dead Man might be able to put the students in a more reflective mode. In my vision, the assignment coming out of the film will be a response paper. It’ll be the second essay assignment, following a personal essay and prior to an exploratory essay and a final research essay. So this essay will serve as a transition for the students who will at this point be expected to write more than just themselves and their opinions. They will be descriptive (when paraphrasing film images with words), interpretive (when reflecting on images and readings I provide), analytical (both with the film and the readings), and coherent (when putting their ideas together). They don’t need to worry about research and thesis yet, which are the things to grasp for the third and final paper.

One of the challenges for me when creating the assignment sheet will be the wording. Ideally, I’d like every word to be precise and clear so that the students will know exactly what I expect. But right now, I don’t have that clarity in my head. There’s also the question of grading – should I use rubric or holistic? Giving a percentage to the main criteria might be wise, but I’ll need to first decide what I believe are the most important things that make a good paper.

Tickle-me-Kerouac

First revelation about writing assignments: it takes a long time. Perhaps almost as long as actually answering the assignment.

Anyway, I think that I have a good idea. It’s basically an exploratory essay with a narrative bent. Sorry, but I’m a narrative type of guy. I pity the kids who have the bad luck to draw my class, but I’m going to at least try and tickle their story-telling parts.

Inspiration for my assignment, as part of my road trip theme:
“The best teacher is experience and not through someone's distorted point of view.”
― Jack Kerouac, On the Road

Of course, Kerouac is no prophet and we’ll certainly be moving from ‘experience’ toward analyzing and synthesizing the works and experiences of others. But I like the idea of writing as a journey, as our class as a journey, life as a journey. Somewhat meta.

Plus, kids like talking about themselves. Hell, I like talking about myself. It’s probably when I’m at my happiest.

Hardest part of writing this assignment: the grading part. I’m dissatisfied with mine. I think my students could be frustrated by its vagueness. But I feel like I lack the experience and the perspective of a larger grading system to be more explicit about the expectations for grading.

It’s all so hard. Let’s just all get A’s and eat Froot Loops.

Ethnography FOR YOU

Hi. I don't know if anyone reads anyone else's posts very often, but I'll keep it short - I uploaded the paper from the American Folklore Society Conference about ethnography in the first year composition classroom to PBworks, under the file SOMETHING YOU SHOULD READ, or something like it.

You're welcome.

Kastley and Kroll

I found Kastely's article surprisingly interesting and agreed, at least in theory, with many of his claims. For example, I agree with his claim that many people think that the formal exercise of producing arguments is a charade and subsequently have cynical attitudes toward argument as it is taught in the classroom. We all know, Kastley says, that this is not how people discourse in the real world, and that “argument outside the classroom adheres a different set of rules.” (23) I'm in a philosophy class, and every Monday I'm reminded how true this is. There is something blatantly aggressive and unreflexive about classical arguments, and so when we see, as we all to often do, the “blatant manipulation of discourse by various politicians and corporations”(22), this only underscores our cynicism.

The cynics, Kastley seems to admit, have a point, but this does not mean we need to abandon the argument; rather, we need to re-conceptualize how we understand, use, and teach argumentation. One way we can do this is to use literature (Antigone, for example) as theoretical texts so we can broaden the way we understand argumentation, and address pragmatic,and til now pedagogically unasked, questions such as why-even when logically sound-arguments fail and why people argue in the first place (not why they disagree, but why they engage in the first place in the rhetorical practice of arguing) (39). If we can implement a theoretical scaffolding along these lines, we will able to determine things such as whether or not an argument was “generative” rather that merely see which arguer was victorious. While this sounds a little hokey, I think it gets at a worthwhile point. It casts light on an oft overlooked aspect of arguing, which is that most people attempt, when arguing, to dominate, and very few are willing to “risk understanding”(38).

Ideally,when I teach argument writing, I will stress that one of the most important “victories” one can achieve in arguing is not persuasion, but rather getting the other side to attentively listen to your argument, even if in the end they remain unconvinced.

The perspectives on argument that are presented by Kastely and Kroll are inherent in the theoretical field I work in. Lacanian theory makes claims that are pretty wide-sweeping (and which seem to step on a lot of toes, ranging from those of the cognitive scientists to chomskian linguists). This field is marginalized and jostles for recognition, and this is why some of my favorite writers in the field are those who exemplify Kroll's advice, that one of the most important “victories one can achieve in argument is not vulgar persuasion, but rather getting the other participant to attentively listen to your argument, even if in the end they remain unconvinced.

Kastely's Attack on Formalism

For some reason, I couldn't open the link to the Kroll article or find it anywhere else. My computer didn't have a plug-in, I tried downloading it...apparently I wasn't meant to read that one.

Anyway, I'll comment on Kastely's article. His approach to the formalistic teachings of argument made sense to me, in that argument is using discourse to back up a conclusion (222). But, this leaves out the perspective that writing is a process, and it is not the ultimate product that matters, but how we get there. I'm with Sarah S. on this, I intend to incorporate some sense of the writing process into my classroom. This way, I believe that students from all disciplines will be able to apply this process, at least to some extent, into their writings in future classes. So far, I'm with Kastely in his opposition to the formalist approach to writing.

Toward the end of the article, Kastely recognizes the steps students take to a well-crafted essay. He notes they might consider opposing views, take those views into account, provide evidence for their claims, and so on (239). But, ultimately, the essay has little impact on anyone, and so to prevent students from this realization, Kastely proposes writing teachers use literary texts, presumably Greek dramas, to teach theoretical argument (239). I can relate to the idea that the Greeks were well-versed in discourse, and that examining their texts would allow students to recognize the impact of a good argument. They would listen, as Kastely states earlier, and perhaps learn something about themselves. True, but I worry about using literary texts in a class comprised of non-English majors. That seems cruel.

I've been waffling on what sorts of texts to use, and I think using Antigone, or something similar, would be comforting to me, but painful for my students. I wouldn't be the only one using Greek dramas on campus though--Trever had to read Oedipus for his Constitutional Law course in his second year of law school. Not sure I understand the connection in that instance, but maybe Kastely's right, that there is something to be found and applied in teaching argumentation with a literary text.

Argument as An Introduction to Academic Discourse

As I read the articles by Kastely and Kroll, I kept returning to the reading for last week in the Allyn and Bacon Guide. Both Kastely and Kroll point to a weakness that is symptomatic in argumentative as well as synthesis essays. That is, the reluctance of undergraduate writers to stray from what has been presented to them for years as the "right" way to write a thesis statement. A thesis is "supposed" to present a distinct, original idea that will be supported throughout the rest of the paper. If dissenting opinions are present, they are only included to be refuted and thus make the thesis statement stronger. Kastely's description of this tendency is rather philosophical (considering the other side will "attack a narcissism that we all possess"), (237) while Kroll's is more practical ("In the first unit, one of the core ideas... was the notion that a writer could begin an argument with a respectful summary of the opponent's viewpoint") (41). Both of these descriptions, though, indicate a tendency that I have seen in several undergraduate papers at the Writing Center.

Addressing dissenting opinions in either an argumentative essay or a synthesis essay is stressful to students because it leads necessarily to a more complicated thesis, one that will be harder to support. I think that it is important to address this anxiety for two reasons. First, complicated theses are necessary when introducing subtlety into writing. I found Kroll's essay very helpful in this respect. The conciliatory, integrative, and deliberative methods are all really just ways of refining arguments, or of making writing more subtle. A thesis statement (drawing from class) that reads, "Although some opponents of marijuana legalization point to addiction as a reason for its continued status as a prohibited drug, there are medical benefits that may outweigh the risk of addiction in certain cases," is more interesting than one that reads, "Marijuana should be legalized." The second reason is related. I once read an undergraduate argumentative essay in which the student had to read three articles about a topic and explain which article was the most convincing. The student said that the first two articles' arguments were "ludicrous" and that the only one "with enough brains to figure out a solution" was the author of the third. Hopefully, if this student had been exposed to Kroll's ideas about adversarial arguments, he would recognize that this language is alienating to an audience that may be sympathetic to other viewpoints. Both of these aspects - subtlety of argument and respect for dissenting opinions - are important to academic writing, where the purpose is not to put forth an original opinion and stick to it, but to participate in an ongoing dialogue with other writers and scholars. Introducing aspects of Kroll's work into my own classroom will, I think, aid me in guiding students toward this sort of academic discourse and away from adversarial arguments.

Beyond Form: Thought and the Writing Process

As I continue to consider how I want to teach my composition students, I keep returning to the idea of writing as a process as well as a product. Though we pay a lot of lip-service to the “writing process,” the ultimate goal of many—if not most—writing assignments seems to emphasize the creation of a written product. Does it have a clear thesis? Does the evidence support the initial claim? Is the evidence properly cited?

Don’t get me wrong; these questions are important, and the written product is a critical component not just of composition classes but of every class. What I appreciate about Kasteley’s and Kroll’s articles, though, is that they also address the thought processes behind students’ writing. In Arguing Differently, Kasteley challenges his students to evaluate when traditional arguments are most effective and when other forms might serve their purposes better. Though he discusses three broad, alternate approaches to argument—conciliatory, integrative, and deliberative—he seeks “to avoid talking about types or modes or kinds of essays” so his students can discern the most effective strategies to accomplish their writing goals in a given situation rather then merely learning to follow a particular form (42).

This is not to say that forms are “bad.” I’m convinced that forms are often enormously helpful in teaching composition, for they provide useful, tangible models of writing. The danger seems to be rather that forms, if overemphasized, can ultimately limit students’ creativity. Kroll points out that one “dismal consequence” of forcing students to write using the traditional argument form “is that student arguments become rehearsals of unreflectively held positions or repetitions of unexamined banalities” (223). The point, I think, is not to stop at teaching students the form, but to also teach them why and when it’s useful, how to manipulate it in other situations, and how to gauge which writing strategies will work best for a given assignment. I firmly believe that, in order to help my students become better writers, I must also challenge them to become better thinkers; though I’m not sure exactly how to do so, I think Kasteley’s and Kroll’s articles offer some good ideas on where I can start.

Experimenting with Argument

I think both James L. Kastely and Barry M. Kroll encourage the writer to approach disagreements differently; to be more specific, using disagreements as a resource to complicate and expand one’s arguments and opinions. Kastely proposes “conceiving argument as a particular type of inquiry in which disagreement becomes a resource for exploring both personal and political identity” (223). Kroll also shares this sentiment by arguing that the writer can approach disagreements in ways that are “conciliatory, integrative, and deliberative” (54). I do think that their propositions are helpful in a way that they broaden my view of what argument can be. Argument is not simply a game in which one wins or loses, one succeeds in persuading or fails to change the opponent’s mind. It implies negotiation, mediation, recognition (of other’s views), and exploration (of solutions and possibilities).

     I was thinking how I can use their arguments in my class. First, of course, I have to let my students know that one can approach argument in various ways. Challenging my students’ imagination of what argument can be is the first step. Here, I think I can offer some texts and examples that demonstrate the possibility of alternative approaches to argument. In fact, I think there are more forms of arguments than those mentioned in these two authors’ articles. For example, I once read an article which presented powerful and potent argument in a way that is not “critical” but simply “descriptive.” I think I can show my students some paragraphs that make convincing argument without following traditional models (for example, formalist approach).

    Also, allowing students to experiment with their argument is also important. This is not to say that students can randomly write what they want, but they are offered some flexibility. If an instructor emphasizes how important it is to strictly obey the patterns of “classical argument,” then I do not think students would like to take the risk of incorporating or considering disagreements or conflicts. I actually think that exploratory essay or synthesis essay is a good point of departure where students are trained to take different points of view into consideration.

    Even though I think these two authors’ arguments are helpful, there is one point I have to be careful about. When I was reading Kroll’s article, I felt that there was an imposition of “harmony” going on in his argument about arguing differently. Since we are dealing with “controversial” issues, I do not think it is always necessary to come up with some “common interests,” “shared goals” or “compatible values” in integrative or deliberative argument. I think the question of how to avoid this harmonization and at the same time argue differently (not in an attempt to defeat someone) can be a challenging one. 

Busta - this one's for you.

So, Sarah B. has been studying the role of creative writing in the composition course.

Follow my logic.

I was at the American Folklore Society Annual Meeting this past week. Speaking with a fellow Mizzou folklorist about why he's taking creative writing courses - he says that they help ethnography. Ethnography is kind of a genre of creative writing non-fiction. I guess the bridge between creative nonfiction and academic writing.

And then I went to a panel on folklorists teaching first year composition, and there was a paper about including ethnography as assignments in the first year comp classroom. His results, he said, were overwhelmingly successful.

It allowed students to write about their own experiences. It also allowed students to become actively engaged in communities, and to even become advocates for the communities.

More in class.

Deemphasizing Form

Reading Kastely’s “From Formalism to Inquiry” and Kroll’s “Arguing Differently,” I wonder why we continue to call an argument essay an argument essay. What if we simple call it an analytical essay, or a research essay, or a critical essay? The word “argue” suggests that the writer has to refute oppositions and Allen & Bacon Guide especially prescribes counterarguments an inseparable part of the arguing process. But Kastely convincingly points out that argument can be an ineffectual act because it is commonly used as “a means for dominating or silencing an other”(230). In that sense, it seems counter-productive to ask students to write an argument essay and then tell them they should argue differently, as Kroll suggests.

In last Thursday’s class, Rachel explained the difference between a research paper and an argument essay. From what I gathered, a research paper can be used to achieve various goals including argumentation. The three different approaches (conciliatory, integrative, and deliberative) provided by Kroll in a lot of ways are aimed at expanding the narrow scope of what an argument essay can do. So maybe it would be less confusing for the students if we ask them to decide on their own what their goal for a paper is before proceeding to write it. In that case, it might be preferable to call an assignment a research paper than an argument essay.

Another interesting thing about Kroll’s article is that he is hesitant to prescribe any formula to students. “I was eager to avoid labels that suggested an emphasis on forms,” he says, because he worries that the students would “focus on producing texts with a set of defining features” (42). I feel similarly toward formula, but how do we teach students to write academic papers without telling them “a set of defining features?” Despite what Kroll says about formalism, he goes ahead telling the students how to write the opening, middle and closing sections of their paper. Even we all agree that form should be deemphasized, it seems quite unavoidable to teach it.

The duck, duck, goose approach to argument

I appreciate Barry Kroll’s instinct to get away from the he said, she said view of argumentation. Seeing any issue as two-sided robs the subject of its complexity and closes the door on any new revelations or levels of understanding. His image of students sitting in a circle and piecing together a comprehensive argument is exactly the pluralistic set-up that gets us closer to real knowledge.

But parts of Kroll’s approach seem strange. Chiefly, he seems to advocate a writer make concessions to the audience. He writes: "The writer's task is to identify shared interests, compatible goals and common values that can serve as a basis for urging adversaries to cooperate."

Should that really be the writer’s task? Is this writing or a contract negotiation?

Writing ought to be dangerous, risky. Eggs must be broken for the greater human omelet. It ought to be a Denver omelet.

Kroll’s approach seems most applicable in terms of writing the “argument paper” or thinking of argument as a genre. I think that fiction writers make arguments in every piece. We might call them messages. But the idea is similar; we craft prose in such a way that the reader is left with an instinct to agree with us, or at least understand what we’re getting at or engage with our ideas in some way. And that happens without bending our techniques or vision to the whims of the audience.

Our thoughts coincide primarily in the idea of nuance. Successful arguments require it, and sometimes that means incorporating parts of an opposing view. But introducing nuance to freshmen seems a monumental task.

Not much to say, a little to add.

On reading Boice's ideas on 'Consistent Writing', I don't have much to say.

But here's something.

He notes to start writing before we're inspired.

Robert Frost said "I cannot write unless I am inspired, and I see to it that I am inspired by 9AM every morning."

I suggest reading Walt Whitman during Boice's suggested 'pausings'.

Good Advice (and Non-Advice) From Our Main Man Boice: BDS

Good Advice From Our Main Man Boice: BDS

Sometimes Boice's advice is a little too Zen-like for me to easily palate. At other times though, I feel that his advice is practical and useful. This week's reading selection provided prime examples of both.

Chapter 4 falls into this later camp. Its theme is on how and when to best perfect one's stopping skills, but it offers little tangible instruction (other than to say no others' demands upon your time). To be fair, Boice isn't trying to give us an instruction manual, but the way he breaks down and presents his behaviorist perspective of what good teachers do correctly isn't in the most palatable format for those people who most need Boice's advice (new and prospective teachers).

Chapter 11 stands in sharp contrast; I believe that it offers a great piece of concrete advice. Here, Boice urges one to work in BDSs, or brief daily sessions, because “Writers”, he quotes Donald Murray, “write.” This is a suggestion I took to heart earlier in the semester, and while I haven't generated anything substantial, I've noticed that ideas stay fresher in my head and I can work with them more adeptly. It also is getting easier to just sit down and work as opposed to dilly-dallying around for twenty minutes while I gather the gumption. However, one trick of his that I have been less successful in is working at regular times, which at this point is unlikely to happen.