Draft Hypermediated Philosophy Portfolio

Here is a DRAFT of my hypermediated Teaching Philosophy Portfolio.  Based on the chapter provided by Dr. Rice, I re-envisioned my teaching philosophy to incorporate a hyperlinked portfolio approach.  There is still much writing to be done on the "theoretical underpinnings" sections so I just left my very rough notes.  While this is incomplete, I decided to post the draft to get feedback on the format and work so far.

(The hyperlinks in the document work on the PDF but don't appear to work on the PDF viewer for the blog.  Regardless, hopefully you can get the idea -- :-)  If you are very ambitious and interested, I believe you can download the document to get the links to work correctly.)


Hypermediated Teaching Philosophy.pdf

Week 4: Philosophy Statement

For my philosophy statement, I intend to reconceptualize and revise my teaching philosophy statement.  Within that statement, I’ve currently identified three areas that form the triad of my teaching goals:

1.     Relevance: “Relevant education is provided when students can articulate how to incorporate what they have learned into their professional careers and personal lives.  It often takes great effort to help students understand why certain acquired knowledge is relevant to them, but I fervently believe that it is worth the extra effort if it means that the knowledge will be used in their future rather than forgotten after the next exam.”

2.     Education vs. Indoctrination:  "My efforts are aimed at teaching students how to think rather than what to think.  It is impossible to anticipate the various moral, ethical, and even technical realities our students will face, even in the near future.  To be prepared to navigate these realities, I give students tasks with increasing complexity, helping them build their confidence at each step.”

3.     Expansion of Worldview: “I push students to critically examine long-held and cherished beliefs about race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and social class.  When I am able to guide students to recognize their own belief systems, rather than simply acting on them by instinct, they can begin to ask themselves critical questions about the merit of their ideas.  .  .  Students are inundated with new information presented in a seemingly objective manner.  Helping students break down the walls of the appearance of objectivity to evaluate the value structure that undergirds all communication is an expansive perspective.”

In reviewing this triad, I still hold the principles dear but to say that they remain unchanged after my own educational experiences in this doctoral program would be contrary to my own stated value system – I value education for its worldview -expansive potential. Therefore, I am moved to reevaluate and incorporate all that I am learning.

There is clearly a classical Sophistic influence in my teaching philosophy that I will continue to explore but I also see influences from more modern social constructionists and critical theorists, such as Burke, Perelman, and possibly even Foucault.   I’m looking forward to exploring this more as I delve more deeply into this assignment and of course, receive feedback.

Week 3 Classical Rhetoric and 9/11

What rhetoric do you remember being employed during and in the aftermath of 9/11? Perhaps make connections to rhetors we've been reading.   

At the heart of classical rhetoric is the notion of truth.  Is truth transcendent?  Is it rational and objective?  Is it knowable? Is it socially constructed?  Plato felt that there was an objective and absolute truth but that truth was unknowable.  The Sophists took more fluid approach to the notion of truth.  Plato feared the Sophists would/could use their artful rhetorical skills to manipulate audiences and convince them of untrue or unknowable ideas.

While we have more modern rhetorical theories from which to draw, classical rhetoric has much to offer in contemplating the rhetorical messages disseminated in the wake of 9/11, particularly as they relate to the notion of truth.  Certainly something “absolute” and “knowable” occurred as evidenced by the 2,996 lives lost, fallen World Trade Center towers, destroyed planes, damage to the Pentagon, and other indisputable effects of the events. 

However, the rhetoric that followed called into question every facet of how we interpret those “truths.”  For example, 9/11 “truthers,” led by Alex Jones from his InfoWars blog (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html) believe that the US government orchestrated the attacks.  Using sophisticated rhetorical strategies that appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos, “truthers” have promulgated theories that question the collapse of WTC 7 (http://www.infowars.com/new-911-footage-reveals-wtc-7-explosions/  or http://www.ae911truth.org/). 

Using eye witness accounts, experts, and comparisons to similar-appearing building demolitions, the "truthers" assert that the building was in fact imploded by pre-planted explosives instead of collapsing as a result of the damage caused by the planes’ impacts.  While these theories have been debunked, they still hold sway with a relatively large portion of the American population (One poll indicates that one in three Americans think it was an “inside job” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-11-conspiracy-theories-wont-stop/.)

Is this the rhetoric that Plato feared?  An absolute truth that exists, but may not be fully knowable, and is certainly difficult to communicate, which therefore provides fertile ground for speakers’ to use their rhetorical skill to manipulate the audience to believing their particular version of “truth?”  

Whether one believes that 9/11 is the product of a US government conspiracy to justify an Iraq invasion or the result of a long-term Al Qaeda operation as part of their declared war on the US, both the event and the rhetorical messages describing it have had a potent aftermath.

Week 2

The reading this week was particularly intriguing as I was wholly unfamiliar with non-Western rhetorics.  Borcher’s treatment of the subject provides a nice overview and introduction. 

I’m particularly drawn toward Afrocentric rhetorical theories because I often discuss and explore the topics of white privilege and racial disparities in our justice system.  Of course, it makes sense that western theoretical approaches would be privileged in academic knowledge bases and I welcome the inclusion of non-Western approaches.

The Knowles-Borishade model opens up two interesting lines of thought for me.  First, the way they position audience is significant.  In contrast to a western approach where audience is simply the recipient of the rhetorical message, in the Afrocentric approach, the audience is an active, engaged actor in the rhetorical process as both the chorus and the responder.  This re-positioning of audience to a more centralized locale means the audience is part of the meaning-making and not a receiver or just situated at one end of a recursive cycle.  In many ways, this model recalibrates the entire process in my mind.  I realize that it specifically is intended and used to describe oration with African-style roots or orators from the black community but just as Western rhetorical models have been used to explain non-Western rhetoric, I wonder if this model can be used to explain non-Afrocentric rhetoric?  Or, is it intended to be limited to that particular rhetorical tradition?  At what point do we cross the boundaries into cultural appropriation?

Second, by including the spiritual elements and discussing the concepts of rhythm and movement between chorus and caller, the model captures one of those ineffable qualities of “good” rhetoric – rhetoric that moves you, that gets you caught up in it, makes you swoon and sway, tremble and want to act on what you just heard.   With my admittedly limited knowledge of Western rhetorical models, it is hard to capture precisely the points of order in the rhetorical context that cause those moods and swells but the Knowles-Borishade model, by using Asante’s Afrocentric approach, is able to do just that.

In other words, by widening our cultural lens, we can expand our theoretical possibilities in interesting ways, which is clearly the point!