I'm currently suffering miserably while attempting to write an analytical paper. I used to think I knew how to write; now I know better. I have recently discovered that I only know how to write narrative papers, not analytical papers. Actually, I had no idea there were different kinds of papers or writing, and I am now paying the price for this woeful ignorance. I received a 79 on my primary source paper, with an extra 5 points added to everyone's grade because the professor knows he is an evil grader. So I came out of that fiasco with an 84, which I guess I should be grateful for, but as I always get A's on my papers I'm not feeling terribly thankful about it at all. It took me a couple of days to suck it up and look at all the notes he had written on the paper. I could not dispute any of his comments, but is was quite difficult to look at. Since receiving this grade I have been terrified to begin the analytical paper that is due on Tuesday. I have no confidence that I know how to write this paper. I have to write as if I am testifying before a court about whether or not history is knowable or constructed. No citations, no quotes, and no outside research. Well. Just my own reasoning based on the material covered this semester. It has to be done so I will do it, but I'm sure not looking forward to my grade in this class.
So, with two more weeks of school I have two papers to write and three tests to take, then I am home free! Looking forward to relaxing and enjoying Christmas.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Marx and Parks
Not so that you would notice, but all I do these days is write. I write about book censorship and I write book reviews (which I sincerely hate) and I write about Rosa Parks and the bus boycott. I shouldn't complain; at least I understand these topics. My next writing project doesn't even have a topic, we are allowed no direct quotes in our paper and we can use no research from other sources besides our existing historiography book and boycott source documents. We are to write a 7-8 page paper about whether or not history is "knowable". I can answer that with a big fat "NO", but somehow I'm stretch it out a little longer. it could be worse; the paper was originally supposed to be 12 pages, but he has apparently tired of our whining about the length so he kindly shortened the assignment. Thank you, professor!
Also, after exploding our brains with postmodernism and deconstructionism, we have not moved on to Marxism. He assured us that we could not possibly understand current historical writing without an understanding of Marxist theory. He is also never happier than when he has completely fried our brains; he says that's when he knows he has done his job. Actually, I thought Marxist theory was quite interesting, and if I ever have a chance to read something instead of writing, I would like to investigate his theories a little further.
We have spent the last three weeks doing what he calls "writer's workshop". We had to submit an outline for our Parks paper, as well as one paragraph, to peers for critique. The next step was to submit a rough draft (which, of course, is not rough at all but completely polished and ready for review, as real historians never submit anything less than their best for peer review) for our peers to review. I didn't enjoy this process as I don't feel qualified to judge someone elses paper, but I have new sympathy for the professors who have to read our papers and who hopefully restrain themselves from telling us how horribly we write.
Meanwhile, as I'm writing a history paper with no real topic, I will be writing an analytical paper for kiddie lit about, well, I don't know what about. I should be thinking about that, but I really can't because I have several pages of the Ozarks journal to write, plus tweak the Parks paper before I submit it for grading, etc....
Only five more weeks.
Also, after exploding our brains with postmodernism and deconstructionism, we have not moved on to Marxism. He assured us that we could not possibly understand current historical writing without an understanding of Marxist theory. He is also never happier than when he has completely fried our brains; he says that's when he knows he has done his job. Actually, I thought Marxist theory was quite interesting, and if I ever have a chance to read something instead of writing, I would like to investigate his theories a little further.
We have spent the last three weeks doing what he calls "writer's workshop". We had to submit an outline for our Parks paper, as well as one paragraph, to peers for critique. The next step was to submit a rough draft (which, of course, is not rough at all but completely polished and ready for review, as real historians never submit anything less than their best for peer review) for our peers to review. I didn't enjoy this process as I don't feel qualified to judge someone elses paper, but I have new sympathy for the professors who have to read our papers and who hopefully restrain themselves from telling us how horribly we write.
Meanwhile, as I'm writing a history paper with no real topic, I will be writing an analytical paper for kiddie lit about, well, I don't know what about. I should be thinking about that, but I really can't because I have several pages of the Ozarks journal to write, plus tweak the Parks paper before I submit it for grading, etc....
Only five more weeks.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Postmodernism and Desconstruction
These are two words that I don't ever want to hear again. I plan to forget I ever heard them at all. Even my professor said he tried to study these concepts but eventually gave up because his mental health insurance wasn't that great. Also, my infatuation with historiography is over. This is unfortunate because I have finally learned to spell it.
Tonight the professor told us that writing is about failing. I was glad to hear this because I am no longer able to write; my brain has become useless for the purpose of writing about history. I think part of my problem is that I am used to writing narrative and now I have to write analysis. I'm having trouble with this concept and I think it is mostly because I'm scared silly. Ever since we discussed these bizarre ideas (to me, anyway) in the title, I have been absolutely out of my mind. I can't think straight at all anymore when it comes to writing the primary source paper that is due very soon. I'm afraid to write a single word because I'm sure I will be doing it all wrong.
On a more positive note, I made A's on my historiography test and my book review, as well as on my kiddie lit mid-term and my Ozarks history mid-term. So, all is not lost. At least not yet.
Tonight the professor told us that writing is about failing. I was glad to hear this because I am no longer able to write; my brain has become useless for the purpose of writing about history. I think part of my problem is that I am used to writing narrative and now I have to write analysis. I'm having trouble with this concept and I think it is mostly because I'm scared silly. Ever since we discussed these bizarre ideas (to me, anyway) in the title, I have been absolutely out of my mind. I can't think straight at all anymore when it comes to writing the primary source paper that is due very soon. I'm afraid to write a single word because I'm sure I will be doing it all wrong.
On a more positive note, I made A's on my historiography test and my book review, as well as on my kiddie lit mid-term and my Ozarks history mid-term. So, all is not lost. At least not yet.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Primary Sources
Last week I had my first test in historiography and my first book review was due. Thank heavens the history test was not essay, but objective only. History students hardly ever get that kind of break. Anyway, I think it did well; at least, I know I aced the extra credit section. I'm not sure about the book review.
In historiography (I have finally learned to spell it!) we are deep in the study of primary sources. According to the website Historical Thinking Matters, the methodology for studying historical documents is as follows:
1. Sourcing - Consider the documents author and its creation. To me this means who, what, when, where, why, and how.
2. Contextualizing - Situate the document in the appropriate time and place. What is going on here?
3. Close reading - Read carefully and consider what the document is saying and what it is trying to say. What does the source say and what language is used to say it?
Corroborating - Compare and contrast the document with other primary sources. Check important dates and details to determine the reliability of the document.
I am enjoying this immensely. I feel like a detective searching for clues and I love it. I only wish I were looking for clues about Latin American history, which is my true love.
In Children's Literature last week we read Skellig by David Almond. Loved this book! Part fantasy, part reality, we discussed how authors help the reader suspend disbelief and believe in the fantastical. I believed everything!
In regards to my previous post, I added a link to the author's website, which includes information about the controversy over her book, as well as information about banned book week (which was actually last week).
This is the first semester I have had time to attend the meetings of the history honor society and it has been a nice addition to the overall school experience. Most of the time I don't feel like a real student because I'm always rushing back and forth to or from work, so it is good to have the chance to meet with other history majors and get to know knew people. I'm really excited about some of the upcoming activities with the group, which includes possible work days at a couple of national parks in the area. Finally, I feel like I am getting to the meat of my degree and I have hope for some future possibilities that involve history in some way. It has been a long time coming. I hope change is in the air.
In historiography (I have finally learned to spell it!) we are deep in the study of primary sources. According to the website Historical Thinking Matters, the methodology for studying historical documents is as follows:
1. Sourcing - Consider the documents author and its creation. To me this means who, what, when, where, why, and how.
2. Contextualizing - Situate the document in the appropriate time and place. What is going on here?
3. Close reading - Read carefully and consider what the document is saying and what it is trying to say. What does the source say and what language is used to say it?
Corroborating - Compare and contrast the document with other primary sources. Check important dates and details to determine the reliability of the document.
I am enjoying this immensely. I feel like a detective searching for clues and I love it. I only wish I were looking for clues about Latin American history, which is my true love.
In Children's Literature last week we read Skellig by David Almond. Loved this book! Part fantasy, part reality, we discussed how authors help the reader suspend disbelief and believe in the fantastical. I believed everything!
In regards to my previous post, I added a link to the author's website, which includes information about the controversy over her book, as well as information about banned book week (which was actually last week).
This is the first semester I have had time to attend the meetings of the history honor society and it has been a nice addition to the overall school experience. Most of the time I don't feel like a real student because I'm always rushing back and forth to or from work, so it is good to have the chance to meet with other history majors and get to know knew people. I'm really excited about some of the upcoming activities with the group, which includes possible work days at a couple of national parks in the area. Finally, I feel like I am getting to the meat of my degree and I have hope for some future possibilities that involve history in some way. It has been a long time coming. I hope change is in the air.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Speak Up
In my Children's Literature class (I fondly call it "kiddie lit") this week we are reading Speak, a young adult novel by Laurie Halse Anderson. This is a dark story of the rape of a young high school girl and her emotional response to the horrifying event. The book is the child of the New Realism movement in children's literature.
Emotionally, the book is at times difficult to read, but it is well worth reading regardless of your age. In addition to the topic of rape, it covers such issues as depression, underage drinking, bullying, and parental alienation. Not once while reading Speak did it occur to me that the book might be pornographic or inappropriate for young readers.
I bring this up because a local professor wrote a letter to our newspaper decrying the use of the book in high school English classes because it is pornographic. The school district in question has recently banned another children's book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, a book which I have not read.
While I respect a parents right to monitor their children's reading material, I don't believe that right should extend to other peoples children or to an entire school district. It is my hope that people will read the book and decide its value for themselves rather than take someone elses opinion as gospel. Censorship should not be an option.
Emotionally, the book is at times difficult to read, but it is well worth reading regardless of your age. In addition to the topic of rape, it covers such issues as depression, underage drinking, bullying, and parental alienation. Not once while reading Speak did it occur to me that the book might be pornographic or inappropriate for young readers.
I bring this up because a local professor wrote a letter to our newspaper decrying the use of the book in high school English classes because it is pornographic. The school district in question has recently banned another children's book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, a book which I have not read.
While I respect a parents right to monitor their children's reading material, I don't believe that right should extend to other peoples children or to an entire school district. It is my hope that people will read the book and decide its value for themselves rather than take someone elses opinion as gospel. Censorship should not be an option.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
What is Historiography
A few semesters ago I took a world history class at the community college. Our first assignment was to write a historiographical paper about an event in history and how it relates to something in our life. Unfortunately, I didn't know what historiography meant and had no idea how to apply it to my own life. I got a big fat "C" on the paper, even after a re-write that didn't impress her at all.
A couple of years down the road now and I am taking Intro to Historiography at what Caz and Student Mum call "Uni". I'm learning terms like historicism, historical awareness, periodization, antiquarian, and social memory. The list goes on. This week we are reading about the different subjects historians study, such as political history and economic history. And, finally, historiography. Simply put, it is the study of how history is written. It is how historians do their work. So now I know what it means, but I can still barely spell it. Hopefully this deficit will not hold me back.
One thing I appreciate about the History department is the varied age group of the students. I was the only non-trad in the Spanish department, but I can always count on a few people who are my age or older being in my history classes. It's a nice break from being the oddball in class.
I'm not very hopeful about the Ecuador trip. My husband doesn't think he can do without me for four weeks. I guess I should be happy about that, right?
A couple of years down the road now and I am taking Intro to Historiography at what Caz and Student Mum call "Uni". I'm learning terms like historicism, historical awareness, periodization, antiquarian, and social memory. The list goes on. This week we are reading about the different subjects historians study, such as political history and economic history. And, finally, historiography. Simply put, it is the study of how history is written. It is how historians do their work. So now I know what it means, but I can still barely spell it. Hopefully this deficit will not hold me back.
One thing I appreciate about the History department is the varied age group of the students. I was the only non-trad in the Spanish department, but I can always count on a few people who are my age or older being in my history classes. It's a nice break from being the oddball in class.
I'm not very hopeful about the Ecuador trip. My husband doesn't think he can do without me for four weeks. I guess I should be happy about that, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)