Cinnabar and Alabaster

anne came to be my stealth-observer, but she wasn't very stealthy, mostly b/c i gave her no opportunity to be--fortunately, she didn't want to be, & responded beautifully to me throwing her into a demonstrative skit with no warning whatsoever (i picked an easy question). & the class was terrific.

"housekeeping" first, of course; here's something to keep in mind about blackboard, who else has responses to hand in, here's a re-cap of why you're revising summaries (i should e-mail a reminder just to make sure we've all got it all straight, b/c i keep adding tiny things to make sure that they end up w/a paper trail to refer back to come write-up time) & by when & what "summary" really means anyway.

then i read them a passage of burke on the "parlor model" for visualizing the researcher's job/positionality, having them close their eyes & visualize the actions he described, & from there took them to thorley's key verbs that encapsulate the same idea: there are ongoing conversations out there about whatever you want to learn about. your job is to 1) locate those conversations, 2) listen in to what's being said by whom, 3) report back on what you've heard (geniuses, they got right away that "summarize" was another verb for that step) & THEN & ONLY then "weigh in" with your own ideas, interpretations, questions, responses.

we talked a little about that, in terms of the work they've started doing as conversation-locators & listen-in-on-ers w/their projects so far, & that seemed to clear up too a little of the confusion about how summarizing isn't responding, b/c they're distinct steps in the model, & the i asked them "so let's say you've been kicking around this question about why you're here--why this is a required course in the first place. where might you locate conversations about that to listen in on?" & they had a few good ideas, & then eugene pointed at me, & then i said "oh, look, & there happen to be two of us here!" & threw the question at anne.

& we went back & forth for a few points talking about some pros & cons to the requirement, & she brought in some scholarship on both sides (crowley & i can't remember who in opposition), & they listened. & then i had them summarize/"report back," sharing what they wrote down around the circle, & then i had them "weigh in" first on paper & then sharing those contributions too, & then anne & i decided we needed them on the next decision-making board, because they brought really thoughtful & good considerations to the table. (& obviously i'd completely forgotten about any baggage related to "observation" i might have wandered in carrying by then, b/c we conducted this conversation w/me sitting cross-legged on the table between tacie & julianna, b/c i wanted to be closer to the rest of them & not just standing at the board-end far away.)

& then i asked them & their partners to start "reporting back" a little on paper about the conversations they'd started listening in on so far in their research, & we spent the last 15 minutes of the period on that, with me wandering around to listen in & contribute & ask questions.

it was great. seamless. building from one idea to another. they started out w/slightly dubious faces, got into it in the middle, & i had to interrupt their busy working to dismiss them at the period's end.

as anne noticed, as we walked chattily back across the snowy, sunny campus, they're a great group. far-ranging in opinion, background, experience, interests... but all with interests in putting something into this, & getting something out. i may be totally faking my way through this course, but i'm not in any danger of drowning at all. because they're great. and this really is--more than it's ever been in courses i've taught, although i've often idealized about it being (& said it was to try to nudge it there) a collaborative project. i told them this course would only be good if they made it good. they're making it good.