Syllabus - couldn't do 3rd column without considering the first 2

The Question	The Proposition	On the Syllabus
What are the goals of this course (my goals, not just re: the description) and how do I want to communicate this to my students?	I want to provide a safe space where each student will grow in confidence and trust. As there is diversity in learning styles, so is there diversity in communicating, interacting, and engaging styles. I want them to develop a better sense of who they are as writers.	Each student, in her own way, engages with the other students’ work, mindful at all times to be respectful and considerate. Moving about the space is permitted, but only when you have the floor. Otherwise, you are always seated and engaged. You submit work based on guidelines, and you will read and respond in written form to your classmates’ submissions.
What teaching style do I plan to use and how much are the students involved in the pedagogy of the class?	I want the workshop to be interactive but with some “instruction” or “lecturing” in the beginning for centering, orientation and learning the basics components of the genres, of analyzing a text and otherwise engaging with it.	Do not hold back. What you have to say is important, whether the rest of us know it or not. The assigned materials are designed to help you with creating a solid foundation upon which to build. You are expected to read them all by any specified due date and be prepared to engage in any direction and on any level the class takes when you come to learn.
What are the formal expectations of this class? What do I want the students to accomplish and what do I want them to know?	I want the students to read at least one text or body of work in each genre, and to critically read and respond to these texts. My hope is that they develop the habit of writing every day.	To each of the assigned readings you will write a 1-page (300 word) response in your own words, focusing on some craft aspect. Each response will deal with a different aspect of the genre. You will compose 2 pages of poetry, 5 pages of both fiction and creative nonfiction. Your final project will be 15 pages of either poetry, fiction or creative nonfiction.
What are the pitfalls of the class? Where can it go wrong and how can I prevent that?	That the line between formal and casual gets blurred and discipline erodes. That the students lose interest.	You will be put into groups and assigned a project that you will do collaboratively. The end result will be a work in any of the genres. You will have to clear this project with me in advance. You are expected to have fun with this and to really use your imagination. You will present this to the class, a twenty-minute project.
What is the role of reading in my class? How do I determine the authors I’ll discuss and will they be models or points of discussion or what?	In this introductory workshop I want the students to feel as comfortable with the reading materials as possible. I want diversity of genre and style of basically contemporary authors. The point of the reading would be to engage their interest, and this means that the texts would have to be approachable. I also want the readings simply to broaden their base.	Based on what you offer on the first day of class as creative works you feel are seminal and/or indispensable to the serious creative writer, one of such suggested works in each of the three genres will be assigned as class readings and will be treated in the same manner as the pre-assigned readings. A vote will be taken and in the event that a decision is not clear cut, I will be the one to decide what pieces will be added to the syllabus.

Introductory Writing Workshop: Fiction Poetry Memoir

The Domain of the World is Five People Large

While specific analysis and quotations from five different authors bring up poignant examples and driving forces behind the “need” to write, Csikzekntmihaly’s blanket assumptions of how the “artist” is or how the “artistic” mind works are frustratingly one-dimensional. Being that he is not a creative writer, I would be looking for him to collect diverse and far-reaching data in order to come up with commonalities among processes. Instead, he sites five writers, three of which are poets and two novelists, one of science fiction. All of the writers sited were primarily famous in the United States and all were Caucasian. The lack of diversity and the very limited size of the pool of writers Csikzekntmihaly sited as the sources of his grand generalizations on creative process and domain, lack applicability to a giant portion of the world.

Csikzekntmihaly claims to deploy on a specific domain analysis in order to see “what is involved in producing a cultural change.” (237) He writes that there is an obvious distinction between “poet and novelist,” (238) which is not true of experimental forms and arguable even of other more traditional forms. This assumption also infers that a writer is either a “poet” or a “writer” which is also a lame and false statement. For instance, novels such as Carole Maso’s Aureole, Duras’ The Lover or Ron Silliman’s narrative poems (Ketjak) arguably harbor elements of both narrative and poetry. Without specification to what type of literature Csikzekntmihaly is analyzing, this is a very vague and pointless statement, especially as he implies the word “obviously.”

In Csikzekntmihaly’s opinion, from the position of non-creative-writer, literature is interesting because due to the “powerful” words used to create stories that “enrich life by expanding the range of individual experience.” He also claims that “the written word allows us to understand better what is happening within ourselves…. poetry and literature… take our lives to higher levels of complexity.” (238) Csikzekntmihaly sites various writers to strengthen his viewpoint as to why literature and writing are important. One trait he stresses is the dichotomy between intellect and intuition, expressed by Madeleine L’Engle as a balance where “intuition and intellect” are “making love.” The perspective is presented that ideas are not created but re-molded or re-invented in personalized ways. In this way Csikzekntmihaly claims that writers “think of themselves as gardeners whose task is to cultivate perennial ideas generation after generation.” All of these assessments are extremely subversive and given that his analysis are based on all-American poetry and prose written by Caucasian writers, where does the rest of the world find their explanation of process?

Csikzekntmihaly makes another alarming generalization in saying that “like most creative people, he (Mark Strand) does not take himself too seriously. I take issue with this sweeping statement as it does not represent the individual at all. Csikzekntmihaly contradicts his point that individuals bring their own view points to art and writing by saying that all artistic people are one “collective” way. (240) In further describing Strand’s creative process he states that “this is the problem-finding process that is typical of creative work in the arts.” (241) Are all artists problem solving? I can’t help but think of nihilists and writers of “underground characters” such as Dostoevsky who displayed human conditions of neurosis and did not provide a viable solution to them. There was a “double” character as a portrayal of disparate halves, but this was not necessarily a solution. It seems that equally, narratives and writers’ objectives in writing could be presented as problem-posing. I don’t quite know if this is a moot point, based on a game of semantics I am playing with Csikzekntmihaly, but it seems to me that his assertions of a creative mind are very limited in scope.

A second thing that Csikzekntmihaly is doing in “The Domain of the World” is psychoanalyzing the perspectives brought forth by the authors themselves. For instance, Mark Strand writes that “I don’t write to find out more about myself. I write because it amuses me.” In the very next sentence Csikzekntmihaly goes on to state “But amusement seems like a radical understatement for the way Strand experiences writing.” An abundance of psycho babble becomes inhibitive when applied to literary process and literature itself. For instance, in the case of the experimental novel or narrative, analysis of a psycho-analytic kind is often counter productive to actually grasping the meaning\value\ process\ of the novel. As Gayle Elliot argues in “Pedagogy in Penumbra: Teaching, Writing and Feminism in the Fiction Workshop” that in speaking about writing and quantifying it “women” need “to take back the language of political transformation and redefine its terms” (140 Colors of a Different Horse) literature is not quantifiable in the terms of any other arena of life and therefore demands its own language and own means of measuring. If this is to be believed, experimental work then demands structures and critiques specific to its realm, ones that address what its mission is, rather than subjugating other standards from a domain whose aims diverge largely from those of the model domain.

Csikzekntmihaly writes that L’Engle “showed her creativity... by being able to turn a disadvantage into an advantage,” an example of one of his broad interpretations of one writer’s creative process. (254) Only in one out of five of his examples does he mention the direct importance of the domain. In Richard Stern’s analysis, Csikzekntmihaly writes that he “had a literary society, a literary magazine- in short, all the makings of a small field.” He emphasizes the importance of these things as “they provide benchmarks… offer competition… provide helpful criticism…. open up opportunities.. . essential to one’s advancement.” To make a generalized statement that this creation of “field” is necessary for writers to have and then site only one of his own five examples as actually having this fulfilled seems to me like poor data collection. This essay\chapter reads as a very sloppy throwing together of writers and interpreting what all writers are, need and want based on attributes of individuals. I am not convinced that he did enough research of a broad enough pool of diverse writers to really present readers with an idea of how “domain” functions in the literary\writers’ world.

Beginnings of a Syllabus

This class is meant to be an introductory foray into the techniques and experiences of creative writing in both fiction and poetry. Class discussion will primarily be involved with workshopping the creative works of classmates and discussing published pieces from both genres to better understand various styles, techniques and voices.

Given the necessity for valuable discussion in both of these areas, it is imperative that all assignments are done in a timely manner in order for discussion to be productive. There will be four announced multiple choice quizzes during the semester that will test on terminology and comprehension.

Most of this class is dedicated to workshopping creative pieces, thus it is imperative that all come prepared with their own work and are ready to speak constructively about the work of others. Workshop rules and decorum will be further discussed, but the main idea is to be respectful at all times. Part of the grading scale is participation, thus it is important to show up to class on time, prepared and willing to share ideas with those who are eager to hear them

At the end of the semester, each student will choose one piece of fiction and one poem which they will choose to turn in as their portfolio. Each piece should include copies of all drafts to demonstrate the creative editing process.

Lastly, each student will attend a poetry or fiction reading of their choice to write a response on. Given the amount of time we spend reading words from a page in an academic setting, it can be refreshing to look at creative works in a new environment from different voices and perspectives.

"On the Syllabus"

In this class we explore the boundaries between genres, and where they intersect. You are writers and readers participating in the creation of a safe, respectful space for growth as both writers and readers, while developing confidence in making and talking about creative work.

In-class interaction with the reading and each other is a large part of your grade for this class. Come prepared to discuss and engage with the texts and your classmates.

Each writer keeps a portfolio of pieces written for the class, including in-class writing and reading responses. Writers choose one piece (poetry, fiction or memoir) of at least 10 pages to re-vision for the final project, demonstrating your strengths and the voice you’ve found over the course of the semester.

Writers attempt work in each of three genres and workshop their pieces in small groups before revising and presenting work to the class as a whole. Workshopping follows provided guidelines and adheres to an agreed-upon definition of respect. In the workshop we engage in mutual sacrifice for mutual benefit. Success depends on everyone’s attentive and vocal participation.

For the first half of the semester a two-page reading response is due for the first meeting of each week. Responses should include commentary on an observed technique as well as where the work is situated in the world, or the space it demands/creates for itself, its relevance. A one-page creative attempt of the technique is due on the second meeting of each week (1st half of semester).

The 3rd Column

So much to include and think about here! I’ve been tweaking these for a couple of days now, and I’m sure I will continue to as I develop the syllabus. For now, here’s my third column:

On the Syllabus:

You come to this class as writers. In this workshop, you are also amongst colleagues. As such, you share your stories and experiences and respect the stories and experiences shared with you. As you engage with elements of craft and relevant readings, you ultimately grow more familiar with your own voice, style, and the creative process you sustain in and beyond this workshop.

You are here to write and contribute to a literary community. Active participation as a writer and colleague makes for a valuable workshop experience. To this end, completed writing and reading assignments, thoughtful feedback on colleague work, and engagement with class discussion are expected. Because writing is also re-writing, cultivating your dedication to your work outside of class is also part of the process.

You will be introduced to short fiction, memoir, and poetry. Final portfolios will include one complete piece in a genre of your choosing, revised over the course of the semester, as well as 2-3 pieces in draft form that nevertheless reflect an engagement with the remaining genres, as well as one report on an activity within a larger literary community (ie. attending an on/off-campus reading, submitting to a lit journal, or joining/forming a writing group).

For the first two weeks, we get inspired with an array of in-class writing exercises, which you continue to work on and revise outside of class. After forming our House Rules as a class, workshops commence the third week and continue for 12 weeks, during which your work will be workshopped twice. Please meet with me during the week prior to or following your workshop to ask questions. You also have the support of an assigned partner to review work prior to workshop, attend events with, or lean on for general support.

Each week’s reading highlights one or more of the craft elements we also discuss in class: development of voice, character, point of view, effective conflict, description, dialogue, setting, imagery, etc. To class each week also bring one page of original writing—inspired by the style, voice, or another technique you enjoyed from the week’s reading—to share with the class or in small groups.

Teaching Observation

Class Title: English 4070: Advanced Workshop in Fiction

Instructor: Steve Gutierrez, Ph.D.

Place: CSU East Bay, Hayward

Date Observed: March 3, 2010

Size of Class: 17 students. Only 14 were present.

Make up of class: The students were upper division, all juniors and seniors. Two of the women, in fact, had mentioned they were going to graduate at the end of the quarter and they slapped high fives (once the class got underway, one of these women contributed often, the other did not open her mouth once, but she was on her computer a lot and during break confided to the other that she was playing a video game called “Scuzzle”. Ironically, she was sitting directly to Steve’s left). I counted 9 females and 5 males. They seemed to range in age from twenty to mid thirties, the 2 older ones being white males. Ethnicity often being a challenge, my guess is there were: 2 African American females, one appearing to be biracial (she clearly self-identified as black in the free write); all 5 men were white, one possibly Latino; I possible Latina and 5 white females, otherwise 6 white females. 2 women wore hoodies while in class and 4 of the women used laptops.

Physical arrangement of class: The classroom had a desk up front with a blackboard behind. Initially there were rows of chairs with desktops, typical classroom fare. As students came in they moved and rearranged chairs until they formed a rough circle by the time Steve came in at 6:30. He took a chair towards the back of the circle. Prior to his arrival I had spoken with several of the students and they assured me that the class would not go the full length. It was a 3-hour class that was supposed to end at 9:30pm. Steve had wrapped it up by 9:05pm. Personally, I feel that is a long time for anyone to have to be in class, at night, even with a break.

Social atmosphere of class: The students seemed very familiar and relaxed with one another. The atmosphere was upbeat, jovial and sometimes even jocular. They all appeared energetic and ready to roll.

Time class started: 6:35. Activities officially got underway, after the free write, around 6:55pm with the first workshopped piece.

Class Activities: After introducing me to the class and inviting me to actively participate, Steve started off with a free write. He had told me before in an email that he was not much on pedagogy, that he had changed his approach often over the years and had finally decided that it was just best to let them write. “I am a very casual instructor with not much to offer in the way of pedagogy (don't believe in it much, especially not in the workshop, which I've changed about so much over the years I don't know where I stand now. I think I've settled into a Let it happen philosophy. Those who are bound to become writers will, without [sic] this class or not…)”

It was sort of like saying the wheat would separate naturally from the chaff. The true writers would emerge, rise above, no matter what you did or didn’t do. That does sound like some sort of pedagogical philosophy to me. During class he turned to me and explained that the free write was the one exercise he truly believes in, that they generally had one at the beginning of the each class but that sometimes it was skipped, depending on circumstances. He tries to run a loose ship. He explained that he’d only been doing the free writes for about 7 years. He then gave them a prompt they didn’t like, he asked for suggestions, and it ended up being “cornbread”. The class really had a lot of fun with it. Next, they workshopped six submissions, copies of which each student had previously emailed to me at Steve’s request. Five were short stories and one a chapter from a novel by one of the women who is graduating, and varying in length from 7 to 19 pages. I enjoyed reading their work in advance. It certainly contributed to my ability to appreciate the quality of class participation. They were, in fact, awesome workshoppers. All but one offered critical commentary. Only after all critical comments were on the table was the author allowed to respond with anything s/he had to say. Sometimes Steve expressed himself first and other times he let the students take the lead. In other words, he could just as easily have been one of the students. However, there were times when he shared his expert insights by first summing up what he thought the genre was or if he felt that perhaps they were missing the point or drifting too far astray. He also changed his opinion once or twice, indicating to me that he was learning from them as well. There was a break of about 10 minutes around 8:00pm. A couple of students handed in responses to each student submission. The last segment of the workshop was a response read aloud by two students to one of the short stories the class was assigned to read for that week from “The Creepy Girl & Other Stories” by Janet Mitchell, the only required published text. Copies of the responses had been made to pass around the room, and discussion followed. The two critics for next week were announced.

I felt that often the students’ insights were brilliant, reflective of having carefully read their classmates’ submissions, and I was really impressed at how they were honest in their assessments of their colleagues work but also tactful at the same time. Here at Mills, certain of my fellow workshoppers seem always to want to rewrite the authors work without just trying to understand and appreciate where the author is coming from artistically. I felt Steve’s students handled this aspect of criticism with greater sensitivity. I’m not sure what to attribute this to.

There appeared to be a warm yet respectful rapport between the instructor and the students. Steve definitely exerted himself as the bandleader, but without signaling any superiority. The students were well behaved towards one another and towards him. Steve was soft-spoken but assertive, and patient. He did not call on anyone unless a hand was raised. One young woman hung around until after I was gone to follow him back to his office to speak with him. The two politely saw me back outside and on my way to my car. Yes, I think it was entirely legitimate, although whose mind wouldn’t go there, especially if you are a fiction writer. ;-)

I felt the students were always attentive, mindful and respectful of one another and of Steve. The atmosphere was one of integration, mutual acceptance, and integrity. For the most part, the students did not need to be pushed to be engaged, and Steve did not rush to fill silences, and no one seemed bothered by that. Oh, they also periodically practiced a “time out” where nothing was to be said for at least ten seconds. It was used as a form of transition and, probably, to see if everyone was still mentally ‘present’. Interesting, but generally someone violated the ten-second silence every time, and it showed that it was usually the person who was not paying attention. That individual was gently called out and without lingering further, the class moved forward.

I spoke with Steve both via email before and in person after the class. I felt he was very forthcoming and interested in contributing to the cause, i.e., furthering the mission of teaching creative writing. I got the impression that he has found his stride. By the time you are teaching an advanced workshop, you know that the students are there because they want to be. I believe that an introductory workshop represents a challenge that an advanced one does not. One major question to the student in an introductory workshop: why are you here? It was clear to me, as elementary as it might appear, that Steve’s students were there because each considered himself/herself a writer and had put something on the line to be there.

Class Observation of Dr. Gubernat

Logistics:
Class Title: Intermediate/ Advanced Poetry Workshop
Class Instructor: Susan Gubernat from CSU Eastbay Hayward Campus
Date Observed: 3/8/2010
What is the size of the class? 12 students
What is the make up of the class? (grads/u/gs? Women, age etc)
The class was comprised of all undergrad students and exactly half were male and half were female. Most were typical college-aged, but two were older.
How is the class physically arranged? The students moved their own desks into a rather sloppy circle. It really needed to be widened since not everyone could see each other while talking. The professor sat in the circle with the students.
What is the social atmosphere of the class? Everyone was really friendly. They introduced themselves to me before the professor get there and told me a few tid-bits about what to expect. You could tell the students were familiar with each other and liked to joke around and be playful.
What time did the class start? It was set to start at 4:00PM, but the teacher was very friendly and chatted with her students 10-15 minutes into class time.

Substance:
What were the activities of the class? She told the students who I was and where I came from, and after chatting and settling in, the professor passed out the syllabus for the upcoming weeks. She discussed the syllabus in detail and explained all assignments. She then did a talk on how fun it is to be published and showed the class a website which lists various magazines that are interested in poetry submissions. She then instructed the class to pass around their work, which I am told is always an extreme ordeal and nobody ever has all of the poems that they should. We workshopped 6 poems, a lot for such a short time period.
Were goals stated for the activities? The week had a theme of elegiac poetry, so she had people recall what that was before the poems were read.
How were the activities conducted (non evaluative): Professor Gubernat lead all of the discussions and asked many questions throughout the workshop.
Was text used (published or peer?): The class text, _13 Ways of Looking at Poetry_ by Wendy Bishop was referenced throughout the class since the assignments are based on the book.
Lecturing? Discussion? Exercises? In-class writing? The class was purely discussion with the professor occasionally throwing terms into the discussion and then asking the students to tell her the answer or explain how the device works in poetry, ect.
How many students participated? All students but one participated; she didn’t speak at all through-out the class. The others, of course, spoke in varying degrees of frequency.
Describe interactions among peers and with professor? The professor was extremely relaxed with her students. They would often interrupt her, or make off-topic jokes and she seemed completely fine with it. It was, at times, a very harsh environment because the professor would ask for the “good” aspects of a workshopped piece and people would ignore her and go straight into the bad aspects without her re-directing them back to her original question.

Outcome:
What was the atmosphere of the class? It was very playful. It didn’t help that it started raining really hard so class was interrupted by people going to look at it and also the lights were on very poorly timed timers which would shut the lights off every 15 minutes.
Were the students involved? I would say that most were. Some students completely dominated the conversation.
Did the substance of the class have impact? Well, I liked that she would sprinkle in definitions and terms as she looked at examples in the poetry, but overall I was very surprised this was considered an intermediate/advanced class. The professor does not have the students write on the workshopped poem and turn it into the author, thus the students who do not speak out of shyness will never get their ideas heard. The fact that the professor completely moderated the discussion made it feel forced and contrived with little creativity brought forth in ideas due to the pointed nature of her questioning.
How did the professor engage the students? How did the students engage each other? As I said before, this area was extremely lax. People would interrupt both the professor and each other with frequency even though the professor called on students with their hands up (probably an attempt to combat the interruptions). As I said before, it was a rather harsh environment for criticism in that both the professor and students would treat their suggestions as the law. People would say “you really need to take out the third stanza and swap it with the fifth,” instead of just making the suggestion. In addition, I noticed that all of the poems looked pretty similar in form and the one student who wrote prose instead of lyric was told that the prose was ineffectual in his piece and he should change it.
Your general impression of the effectiveness of the class? I personally found it to be rather ineffective. I really liked that she was trying to get her students to publish. I also liked that her book and lesson plan has the students do a new form with every poem instead of directing content. I really think it is better for both the workshop and the poet to have people write on a poem and then hand it back to the author. This keeps the students on track as they are expected to make comments and it allows for the more shy students to participate. The silliness of discussion and frequent interruption made the class flow feel very stilted. I was also very surprised that 6 poems were workshopped in a less than two hour period. It seemed rather rushed and ineffectual.
Did you talk to the professor and what did you learn? Yes, after class I had a few questions about the details of her class operation that I missed in discussion. She asked me what I thought of her class and I explained that I liked that she was so interested in teaching forms because I was not all that experienced in forms due to never having to write the experimental ones. I also asked why she did not have the students write on the poems and turn them into the author and she said it was because this was the first time the students were reading the poem and thus they would have less to say. She asked me to E-mail her with other concerns or thoughts about the class, and I did (in a very nice and watered-down way of course).