We started out with a presentation by Mrs. Sigler on what is available in our library and how to conduct a literature search. Although our library is small, we have a fabulous set of electronic resources. Our most valuable resources though are people like Mrs. Sigler. She knows so much, is so good at her job, and is incredibly supportive of our students. We are fortunate to have her. I hope the students make good use of the library in all their classes.

After Mrs. Sigler’s presentation, I asked the students to use the behavior rating sheet I gave them last week to identify patterns in their behavior and to set a goal. It is to be private and something for them to work toward and track in their chapbook. We then took some time to identify topics for the literature review and to begin seeking some articles.

Following break we spent some time discussing the experiential assignment (either looking into what facilities are available for the hearing impaired at movies or the shopping experience of a little person). What amazed me was the number of people who connected the little person assignment to the tv show (which I’ve never seen). I’m not fond of the experiential assignments, but I think they were effective for raising awareness of how the environment disables people. I think too that the students got it when I talked about what constitutes a “norm” and how norms shift based on the population.

Then yet another shift to talk about the readings. A lot of interesting things were raised about the Elliot video and Gatto’s article. I don’t particularly like the Gatto article. There’s not a lot to it in my opinion. I’ll have to shop for something different that accomplishes the same thing. Interestingly, some of our own stereotypes and beliefs are starting to come out in the conversation. It will be our task, over the rest of the semester to openly, honestly, and supportively examine those beliefs that arise.

We ended with workshopping the narrative analysis assignment. I shared an exemplar with the students, but didn’t go over it. I figured they could read it. It’s actually quite straight forward. We spent the time in partners analyzing one of the strips of talk provided by Dr. Sangmeister using the five dimensions. The students did a really good job of analysis. What I most enjoyed seeing is that they backed up their analysis with evidence from the talk. What we didn’t get into though (and that’s my fault) was the “so what.” What does the analysis tell us. That’s something I’m going to have to do better in the future.

I also gave the students the option of selecting which Loutzenheiser article to read. They are both good articles and are different, yet I think the two of them are similar enough that reading one is sufficient. Next time I teach the class I’ll just use one and find another article that addresses the same issue from and eled perspective (Loutzenheiser focuses on secondary). I love the Lorde piece. It’s short, but so rich. When I read it, I can just feel the words rolling around in my mouth. She’s so angry and really takes white feminists to task, but does so in such a powerful way.

I’m beginning to feel better about the course. More in control of the structure of the course. I’m feeling much better for having taken out the media analysis and the experiential assignment number three. I hate giving assignments and not supporting students adequately in their completion of the assignment. As I told the students, I’d much rather have fewer assignments and do them well than have lots of assignments and just pass over them. I know there are arguments for having the students engage in lots of different writing and writing genres, but it just doesn’t work for me. That’s why it’s good for students to get different instructors throughout their program.