First Class!

This is what I had tentatively planned: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17VO1PaGRoYT6Q3JM3G-zNTiWjWP33jt_tIsdrxcTrbw/edit

This is what actually happened: 

While I had originally planned to just do a roll-call to ascertain how many are present and welcome everyone, I decided at the last minute I would ask them to mention a random fact about themselves. This turned out to be quite interesting--people mentioned interests or quirks I couldn't have remotely anticipated. It was funny in bits. However, as I hadn't planned for the initial intros to stretch beyond 15 mins, I started feeling a little anxious as we crossed 15...20...25...30 minutes. A reassuring voice in my head, however, pitched in: no, this is bonding, this is fun and endearing and interesting, so it's okaaaay there'll be time for everything else. 

Ah well. It was nice. 

Then we moved on to the word association exercise. Again, I changed it a little bit from what I had planned, I asked them to spontaneously associate words with critical thinking and critical writing because I wanted to point out the difference in inflection when we change the words. The basic point I wanted to make is that while 'critical thinking' has more immediate associations with specific cognitive tasks (perception, observation, discernment), 'critical writing' has stronger associations with composition. Assembling a set of tasks to construct a composite 'developed' articulation of thought. I think I messed up this part a bit. I was rushing a little since I wanted to get to the next exercise quickly, and missed making the point I wanted to. I wanted to ask them why they choose certain associations over others, and then orient the discussion towards how we must have specific contextualized understandings of terms such as 'critical writing'. I did mention this towards the end of the class, but it could have been fleshed out and anticipated better. 

Then we did a group discussion exercise: each group had to read an allotted extract and then recounted the main points. We used breakout rooms on zoom; I felt slightly anxious since I hadn't allotted a time and just assumed the groups can wrap up the discussion in 15 minutes, but there didn't seem to be major hiccups. My wifi also conked at this point, but mobile hotspot came to the rescue thankfully. This was the most intellectually compelling part of the class for me: there were quite a few discussion points that I hadn't anticipated and felt intrigued by. My attempt was to add a 'critical' point to what was being said--although it happened differently for different groups. For example: 

1. The groups responding to the extract from the syllabus seemed to entirely validate the presumption that 'multidisciplinary' education within a liberal arts framework is a good thing, that it gives them a wide-ranging and dynamic education (and thus professionally empowers them too). I'm a little more skeptical about how we are using the word 'multidisciplinary' sometimes. It might easily entail a hodgepodge, not either learning to rigorously ground oneself in particular disciplines/fields of thought or developing a critically comparative evaluation of multiple disciplines one may be navigating. 

2. The groups responding to the extract on argumentation emphasized the need for ascertaining the 'grounds' of an argument, to be able to evaluate, nuance, improve, or modify claims to knowledge. I don't think I was able to make my point very clearly, but I wanted to point out that this approach to argumentation (being alert to the mechanics and constructions of it) somehow doesn't necessarily translate into an ethic of argumentation where we are genuinely listening to each other and re-working fundamental assumptions. It's somehow endlessly possible for people to self-manipulate themselves, despite access to complex evidence, and belief and conviction and self-interest inevitably play a central role in how we rationalize reality. This is also tricky territory, want to go into this in a later class discussion+blogpost: how we think of the interplay of reason and emotion in argumentation. 

3. The third group discussed an extract on the value of aesthetic considerations in writing, both fiction and non-fiction. I didn't have much to add, except for how words can serve as conceptual metaphors for how we reorient our reading of the world around us. And how we are going to pay attention to the rhetorical construction of arguments/ideas in this course and think of how the choice of certain word patterns inflect and emphasize the idea in particular ways. An interesting point that came up but I didn't discuss was the relation between what the author deems as aesthetically desirable and what the audience/readership deem desirable--this is, of course, the domain of genre awareness, something we will get into later in the semester. Another interesting point was about how we think of aesthetic choices in audio-visual composition and how we can compare that with composition choices in writing--have to think more concretely about this. 

4. The next two groups discussed the extract on the social implications of literacy and the importance of socially contextualising what we read+write, and the final group discussed the extract on critical literacy emphasising the importance of contextualising words (to become aware of how we internalise negative stereotypes, perpetuate forms of oppression through the language we normalise). A rather difficult point that came up was regarding the relationship between thought and action--why doesn't thought necessarily translate to action? I tried to respond using the example of how becoming aware of power dynamics in the classroom (through linguistic categories) and recognising how marginal voices may be suppressed is not merely about becoming more sensitive, but becoming aware of how one's own practices is implicit in the domination of another. This requires a far more elaborate exercise of thought, to unpack the frameworks within which we use and misuse words. I felt a bit dissatisfied with this explanation--I want to think more about what we mean by 'action' itself. 

Then I shared a PDF (with the slides for the class) to reinforce some of the broad points we had discussed. I did it in a slightly hurried way, I think. And some couldn't open the PDF--so have to figure out a different approach to reinforce points next time. 

Then we moved on to a getting-to-know-each-other exercise. Everyone wrote down an introductory note on a google docs and then commented on each other's notes. This was quite immersive for me personally (although I can never be entirely sure how others experienced it), finds details about everyone else to resonate and connect with. It's difficult to get to know each other and build a sense of collective classroom energy in the digital mode (sigh) but...we gotta try. 

Finally, I anticipated the next session and we ended the class--I stayed on for a bit to address queries some may have. Class over! 

I deeply enjoyed the first class, but here are a thoughts and feelings I was left with: 

a) The thought that I am talking to 28 students online somehow felt unnerving at moments. In class, I'd walk around, look at different people, and the energy gets distributed across the room. But here, the energy felt concentrated in the space around the laptop--the sense of release was missing. Perhaps this is why I felt more exhausted at the end of class. Also, it's difficult to palpably feel classroom emotions and energies aaaaaa 😭 

b) I think I get a little anxious when I am unclear in my articulation--have to relax a little more. And I think I try too hard to connect everything people are saying with the course. While there may be a tangible and legitimate connection, it might be coming from a need to make everything 'relevant' to the themes of the course (otherwise I fear students might ask what's the point?). It shouldn't be forced, it should be okay to have random digressions too? 

c) It's a privilege to be teaching online to students with internet access (even though not everyone is equally placed here, and a fluctuating internet connection/difficult home situation makes it more difficult to engage and participate). But we cannot normalise this, in a society with such drastic digital divide and disparity in access to resources--a humbling reminder I want to end this post with.