There will be a meeting Thursday, Jan. 20 @ 2 pm in Denney 311 for graduate students to discuss changes to English 700. In order to prepare for this meeting, this blog will be used for 2 purposes: 1) to collect some ideas which will be used to guide the conversation on Jan. 20 and 2) to allow people unable to attend the meeting to participate in the discussion.
These are questions Dr. Allen would like you to consider specifically in thinking about changes to make to English 700:
What should be the key functions of the course? What would you ideally learn? How would it best serve your academic career?
-
What types of training are most useful?
-- literary methodologies
-- introduction to a range theoretical perspectives
-- professionalization (writing abstracts, conference papers, etc.) What would be the best practices? What pedagogical approach or assignments would be most productive? Is having a common literary text useful?
Would there be any interest in a 700 part 2 course? It would likely be smaller scale (like a 2-credit workshop) that could address training in methods and bibliographies after coursework.
700 was valuable for me as an introduction to and overview of modern literary theory. It was essential to my development as a scholar, especially as I had not studied many of the important theorists the course focused on. I took the course five years ago, and at that time it met three days a week: on MW or TR, the class focused on the discussion of literary methodologies and theories in more-or-less chronological order, and what I found most useful was New Criticism to the present day (I suppose now it would be New Criticism to New Formalism); on the Friday class session, we would focus on professionalization (abstracts, conference, the profession, publications, etc.), and we could discuss the theories we had read that week in a more informal setting. This worked very well for me, and I would suggest that the new 700 continue the stress on both professional development and an intensive introduction to modern literary theory. There was also a common literary text which we had all read in advance and which we could reference with regard to the various methodologies and theories, which I think worked well, but I also think having each student discuss a text specific to their individual field throughout the term would work very well. I would have loved a 700 part 2, perhaps as an addition to courses in theory and writing for publication that the department currently offers.
ReplyDeleteWhen I took 700, we did 3 major schools of literary criticism--Marxist criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, and feminist criticism--looking at their initial articulation as well as how they changed over time. This was helpful and gave a good overview of the critical theory I've encountered in the course of grad school, and it actually introduced me to most of the major theorists I've seen since.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, as a non-literature student, I would really have appreciated an introduction to research methods OTHER than critical theory, especially empirical research methods. I think this is really important to get at the beginning of grad school since it sort of sets the parameters for what you think of as possible in your own research. This kind of methodological exposure is important for people in all the different fields in English, since empirical methods come up in literature, folklore, RCL, digital media, narrative, etc.
I also think there should be more emphasis on writing in grad school than in the class I took. I like the professionalization/writing emphasis on Fridays option Seth describes. On the other hand, I think it might be more productive to do this writing portion as a separate class (like the 2 credit workshop Dr. Allen suggests) later in the graduate program, since that's when you really start participating in conferences and when you've really found out what your strengths and weaknesses as a writer are. I think that in addition to talking about the basics of writing the new kinds of genres you get exposed to as a grad student (like abstracts and grant proposals), it would be good to talk about writing for grad school itself (seminar papers, dissertations, etc), since these demand different skills and approaches than the writing experience you get as an undergraduate.
The dept. should consider changing 700 from a 5-credit course to a series of small workshops or, better yet, an independent study with an assigned or self-chosen faculty advisor. From a student's standpoint, it makes little sense to be bombarded with a hodgepodge of theory/methods and professionalization without first having a grasp of what one actually wants to do in the English discipline. Perhaps granting the student some freedom to construct his or her own (guided) exploration into what the discipline has to offer -- without a punitive grading component -- would be the best exposure to graduate study.
ReplyDeleteSelfishly - I would like to be able to TAKE this class - I can't get to campus until 3:18 pm and it is invariably scheduled morning or early afternoon. I believe I'm required to take 700, but am unable to quit my day job.
ReplyDeletekerry mcginnis
I'll be teaching during the meeting, but here are a few thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI found both the overview of critical theory AND the professionalization components of 700 invaluable, and I'd hate to see anyone have to go without either as s/he learns to navigate the field. Seth, who commented above, was in my section of 700 in 2005. As he pointed out, we used a common literary text and read it through the lenses of major critical approaches from 1900 to the present. I found this approach very effective, since I could see the different payoffs of each approach with respect to the same primary text. This helped me understand each approach and make connections / distinctions between it and the others we engaged that term.
For as much as our Friday sessions were helpful, I think something more structured and thorough would be more useful. Specifically, I think a five-credit "Part II" (or maybe this would actually be Part I) in methods would be helpful. This course could handle the professionalization, bibliographic, and research methods, and the other could take on the survey of critical theory.
One possibility would be to continue requiring new MA students to take the overview of critical theory, minus professionalization and methods, and then have a later course on those topics for people who are near the end of coursework. Perhaps this later course could be an independent study structured something like 903, where the student selects a faculty member in her discipline and, e.g., submits an abstract for a conference and a publication, and then works on research methods in conjunction with those professional activities.
I often felt like English700 was meant for literature students, and only literature students. I'm in RCL, and I felt like I was discouraged from approaching the theorists we studied from my disciplinary perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn order to embrace some other students, it would be nice to see someone from RCL, digital media, film, folklore, or another B/C category on the MA exam sheet introduce students to the discipline of English.
I could imagine the course helping orient students to the coverage model proposed by the current MA Exam. Some time on the foundations of folklore, film, period-based literature, theory, rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies would give students a sample of what our department offers. Even doing this during the Friday sessions would be helpful--I found myself in a folklore course before I actually thought I knew what folklore was. I know that the coverage model is (inevitably) overwhelming and might become disjointed in 10 weeks, but I think it is possible.
The vision of English 700 as a tool for professional development articulated by previous posts or as a series of workshops could be useful, and I also think that we should look at scheduling concerns like the one Kerry raised.
I'd like to second Anonymous's comment:
"HOWEVER, as a non-literature student, I would really have appreciated an introduction to research methods OTHER than critical theory, especially empirical research methods."
700 isn't (and shouldn't be) a methods course, but it can provide a better transition into graduate work than it currently does.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment for those who can't attend Thursday's meeting.
ReplyDeleteI took 700 three years ago, and it was different from what Seth and Nick describe above. The Friday session had been cut, so class time was strictly devoted to critical theory. Although I learned a lot, I think a session each week--or even a week out of the quarter--devoted to professionalization would have been very helpful. Perhaps professionalization could include an introduction to the different theoretical approaches (RCL, Folklore, etc.) mentioned above as well.
Additionally, in the class I took there was a common text but it was only used as a springboard for final papers, not as a basis for discussion throughout the quarter. I think if a common text is included, it should be incorporated earlier in the course.
I realize it's difficult to make a course serve as both foundation and introduction; there's always a give and take between breadth and depth. Maybe if the "Part I" is an overview, the "Part II" could be an optional follow up, similar to what Nick suggested, but instead of being solely professionalization it could be a further exploration of whatever area the student wanted to know more about.
For those interested in notes from the meeting, see this link:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYX-DfBr-aCowrVnKwcqci6UySK8gb-X1Uct5HhA7Q8/edit?hl=en&authkey=CP3Av_0J