For me, the Adorno and Horkheimer are blending in my head with Benjamin. I spent a little more time than I'd like to admit digging through the *wrong* text, looking for a reference... Solid, relevant readings for working with topics in this area, and I enjoyed working through them. The additional reference material was definitely helpful background, and the Stanford website is a really good resource.
The discussion prompts have been good conversation starters, in my opinion. I've found them useful.
As far as the pace, rigor, structure and content of the class goes, I'm pleased with things, generally. I've done all the rest of my graduate classes so far in-person, so the work I'm doing for this class is a little different from an equally-theoretical in-person class. I'm comparing the reading and writing and class discussion to Theories of Professional Writing. Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, Lyotard, Habermas and Heidegger were a good foundation for the readings here. From reading others' responses, I realize that I'm not as well-versed in critical theory lingo as some of my classmates. Avery recommended a reference book on critical theory, which I've ordered secondhand. I'm waiting for it to arrive... so that should help a little, too.
I can understand how the Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer would blend together for you; what strategies have you figured out for keeping them as separate as they need to be?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious what the major differences are for you between our class and the other more theoretically-aimed grad classes you've taken, Kim, in terms of the online structure. What do you see the online structure encouraging or discouraging, and vice versa? These are all questions of mediation, and so important for us to consider as experiential observations to bring to the theory table...
I think the biggest difference I see in the structure between this and "theories of prof. writing" is that the classroom structure seemed to function to encourage more dialogue. We did write short reflection papers on the various reading, but much of the engagement with each other in class was verbal.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the feedback was fairly immediate. A person could ask a question and the professor or another classmate would be able to answer (unless, of course, it was asked via email).
I see the online environment as encouraging a person to solidify his or her thoughts differently because communication is written, not spoken. There's less fighting for the right words to express a question than in the classroom (or at least, we don't see it, because the person doesn't post until they've figured out their inquiry).
It also seems that peoples' discussions and lines of questioning go in a lot more different directions in the online environment than in class. A professor can guide discussion along certain lines in a classroom, but if everyone is working independently, then gathering to post their thoughts, a lot more lines of discussion are started and they may not all be addressed.
I've realized that I need to eliminate self-deprecating statements from my postings. It might be a holdover from "nobody likes a smarty-pants" type situations I've encountered as a professional with people posturing, but I tend to *not* declare that I understand something perfectly. (I don't want to have to defend myself after making a grand statement.) Plus, there's always room to learn something more. However, I realize that humor and exaggeration are much easier to take literally online than in person and my careless use of them may be painting an inaccurate picture of my own understanding.
I may not be asking the same sorts of questions because of the (perceived?) expectation to have a well-thought-out question formed. Sometimes I might have asked half a question had it been in class, but it doesn't always seem appropriate for the situation.