MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2164976114 · doi:10.1353/ftr.2010.0022

The Wreading Experiment: Performative Strategies for Teaching Women's Innovative Poetries

2010· article· en· W2164976114 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Carr

Notice bibliographique

RevueFeminist Teacher · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPerformative utteranceFeminismSociologyTeaching methodPsychologyPedagogyAestheticsGender studiesArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Wreading Experiment:Performative Strategies for Teaching Women's Innovative Poetries Emily Carr (bio) the dream of an uncommon reader: 1 I recently designed an upper-level, special topics English course as a "workshop" in wreading contemporary women's innovative poetries.1 I was inspired to "wreading" by Charles Bernstein's essay "Creative Wreading: A Primer," in which he offers interactive and reactive responses to assigned texts as the grounds for subsequent critical interpretations and argues that "you can't interpret what you don't experience" (276). "Wreading" thus implies not only a merging of the acts of reading and writing but also, and more importantly, an investment in experiential learning. I teach at a large Canadian research institution that privileges "practical" pursuits like business and medicine and that continually asks humanities instructors to justify class size and student-teacher ratios. I therefore find myself reiterating the argument that, because of their small class size and their purported "impracticality," literature and writing courses are ideal spaces for creating engaged learning opportunities in which students can experiment with self expression; here they can rehearse strategies for learning to find and hold on to a voice; they can develop a point of view and argue that point of view elegantly, persuasively, and effectively; and they can practice modes of communication that are not market- or consumer-oriented. My primary pedagogical goals for this course were twofold. First, I wanted to unsettle students' reading habits and offer them strategies for approaching the poem as a process rather than a product, asking, "How is it made?" rather than "What does it mean?" By choosing texts by living writers with revisionist but not necessarily overtly feminist projects whose work has been variously labeled as experimental, innovative, oppositional, or avant-garde, I hoped to teach students not only to be aware of sexuality as a discursive construct but to intervene in sexuality's discursive construction. Innovative female poets are doubly displaced; although, for example, women poets—like Emily Dickinson, Gertrude Stein, Laura Riding-Jackson, Susan Howe, Carla Harryman, and Lyn Hejinian—have been radical innovators throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, they continue to struggle for recognition by [End Page 183] their male colleagues. Only two decades ago, American L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet Ron Silliman wrote: [ … ] women, people of color, sexual minorities, the entire spectrum of the marginal—have a manifest political need to have their stories told. That their writing should often appear much more conventional, with the notable difference as to who is the subject of these conventions, illuminates the relation between form and audience. (63)2 An innovative woman poet is thus relegated to writing about her subject, in her voice, which, because it has not traditionally been the subject of history, must be "conventional." It is assumed that her audience consists of members of groups who, like her, have been objects of history and who are not yet ready, as their white masculine heterosexual counterparts, to challenge narrative conventions. Within the broader context of Culture-at-Large, she continues to be at a disadvantage, her writing quickly glossed and discarded even by colleagues whose ethical and political commitments she shares. My second pedagogical goal was thus to illustrate to students their responsibility as university students and as, specifically, students in an English classroom, to intervene in the discursive practices that make such assumptions about women's writing possible, to, in effect, talk back to the white male heterosexual discourse that continues to dominate Culture-at-Large. Poetry is a particularly apt medium for this lesson because students are so unfamiliar with it and, for the most part, have very little notion of the wide range in contemporary poetic praxis. Students expect, when talking about poetry, to read outside their comfort zone; they know and fear they won't "get" it. Half of the battle is thus already over. My task is to teach them to take pleasure in not "getting" it and in creating individual points of entry and strategies for interacting with poetic texts that push language, subjectivity, gender, and sexuality to their expressive limits. The course thus became a temporary social space in which...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,642
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFeminist TeacherMême sujetDigital Humanities and ScholarshipTravaux en français237 207