This chapter looks at the historical roots of ethnography in anthropology. This chapter begins with a discussion of anthropology and ethnography in England. The authors state that "Languages, political systems, religion, gender relations, and means of warfare figured centrally as topics of first concern in ethnographies" written in the past by these British Scholars.
The chapter then moves on to Anthropology in American history. This history begins when anthropologist began studying, observing and recording languages, history, culture, ways of life, etc. of disappearing indigenous populations in the U.S. These cultures were seen as resources of wisdom that could not be lost.
The U.S. also used anthropologist to study "alien enemies" in order to understand them. Anthropologist were also used to understand immigrants. And in the past, not only in America, anthropologist have been used to gain political, social, and economic power. Ethnographers "offer descriptions and analyses of languages, life ways, and patterns of belief. These could inform governments and their emissaries about the range of social, ideological, and cultural differences spread across the world" (115). Sometimes this information was used to oppress people, take advantage of them, etc. Other times this information has been used for positive social change. Some of these examples can be seen in the "Applied Anthropology" section.
Getting this insider information can be dangerous if released into the wrong hands, which is a problem because there is pressure to make ethnographical studies more public and widely available.
I think the authors' main point is that ethnographers need to be aware of the history of ethnography and anthropology so that they are aware of the power of the information that they are collecting and the responsibility they have as ethnographers not to let their study exploit the population they are studying.
On another note, the authors also point out that ethnographers need to remember that "We still [...] can only speak as mortals from various historical, culture bound standpoints. Our claims are inevitably limited and partial. But perhaps making these limits more apparent and by knowing well what constitutes ethnographic validity, we will make our narrative and analysis more, not less, believable. "
The chapter ends with a discussion on how to go about making a public ethnographic text. This can be found on pages 127-128.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Way Literacy Lives- Chapter 4
This is a chapter I wish I would have read LONG ago! It really made clear to me why we are doing what we are doing in our first-year-comp program. I never had a good grasp of it, but now I think I understand it a little better.
We all have access to different literacies. Sometimes we are limited by our language, sometimes our culture, sometimes by our financial status, and still other times by our interests and the sponsors available to us, but the bottom line is most of us are highly literate in something. For example, most of us would consider ourselves highly literate in reading and writing, at least compared to the general population. Eric, Dr. Carter's brother, is highly literate in gaming and computer literacies. My uncle is a highly literate electrician. But it seems in our educational system, schools typically focus on what students can't do instead of what they can. This was the case of Eric in the first grade when his teacher told him he couldn't write name, but in fact, he could. So often students are told they aren't literate when, in fact, they are. I believe that students aren't failing standardized tests; standardized tests are failing students. These tests are responsible for labeling students literate and illiterate and determining whether or not a student needs remedial English. What good are we doing slapping a label on these kids? We're stifling their growth and killing their confidence. We tell them they can't, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it did in Eric's case. Students internalize this "I can't" mentality, and it cripples their growth. So what can we do?
Dr. Carter argues that we can figure out what sorts of thing our students are literate in. That way we are focusing on what they can do, and not what we can't. By doing so, students develop a deeper understanding of their own literacies, and then they can use that as a bridge to understanding new literacies, such as those involved with the academy. Dr. Carter calls them "Points of contact." There is a great example from Selfe and Hawsiher in Dr. Carter's book on pages 90-91:
"Playing games has taught me about writing because a lot of games are like problem solving... when you are making a computer game, you have to think about everything and what can go wrong, what you are forgetting. And this helped me in writing because it's the same thing when I am composing a paper for a teacher."'
Because a student deeply explored a literacy outside of school, he was able to find points of contact that helped him develop his literacy inside of school. By doing this, the teacher focuses on what the student can do, and not what he can't do. Our program also helps the student see how what he can do is useful in helping him learn what he can't (presently) do.
Dr. Carter also makes the point that literacy is context dependent and is constantly changing. Today, "non-traditional" literacies are in many ways just as important as traditional literacies. Where would be without our electricians, our computer programmers, our engineers? When schools focus only on traditional literacy, they ignore other valuable literacies that are necessary today's society and society's future.
This chapter really summarizes why we do what we do at TAMU-C, and I am glad that I read it. The purpose is much more clear to me now.
We all have access to different literacies. Sometimes we are limited by our language, sometimes our culture, sometimes by our financial status, and still other times by our interests and the sponsors available to us, but the bottom line is most of us are highly literate in something. For example, most of us would consider ourselves highly literate in reading and writing, at least compared to the general population. Eric, Dr. Carter's brother, is highly literate in gaming and computer literacies. My uncle is a highly literate electrician. But it seems in our educational system, schools typically focus on what students can't do instead of what they can. This was the case of Eric in the first grade when his teacher told him he couldn't write name, but in fact, he could. So often students are told they aren't literate when, in fact, they are. I believe that students aren't failing standardized tests; standardized tests are failing students. These tests are responsible for labeling students literate and illiterate and determining whether or not a student needs remedial English. What good are we doing slapping a label on these kids? We're stifling their growth and killing their confidence. We tell them they can't, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it did in Eric's case. Students internalize this "I can't" mentality, and it cripples their growth. So what can we do?
Dr. Carter argues that we can figure out what sorts of thing our students are literate in. That way we are focusing on what they can do, and not what we can't. By doing so, students develop a deeper understanding of their own literacies, and then they can use that as a bridge to understanding new literacies, such as those involved with the academy. Dr. Carter calls them "Points of contact." There is a great example from Selfe and Hawsiher in Dr. Carter's book on pages 90-91:
"Playing games has taught me about writing because a lot of games are like problem solving... when you are making a computer game, you have to think about everything and what can go wrong, what you are forgetting. And this helped me in writing because it's the same thing when I am composing a paper for a teacher."'
Because a student deeply explored a literacy outside of school, he was able to find points of contact that helped him develop his literacy inside of school. By doing this, the teacher focuses on what the student can do, and not what he can't do. Our program also helps the student see how what he can do is useful in helping him learn what he can't (presently) do.
Dr. Carter also makes the point that literacy is context dependent and is constantly changing. Today, "non-traditional" literacies are in many ways just as important as traditional literacies. Where would be without our electricians, our computer programmers, our engineers? When schools focus only on traditional literacy, they ignore other valuable literacies that are necessary today's society and society's future.
This chapter really summarizes why we do what we do at TAMU-C, and I am glad that I read it. The purpose is much more clear to me now.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
On Ethnography Chapter 3
This chapter was a lot more useful to me, and I am finally able to start wrapping my head around exactly what an ethnography is. The basic point of this chapter, I think, is that ethnographers need to know as much as possible about the field of ethnography, and the population and place they are observing before they start their research, and they need to cause as little of disturbance as possible while doing their research.
One of the first steps of doing an ethnography is doing a literature review, or as the author calls them, "literature reviews" of the work that "bear some explicable relevance to work being planned" (49). This is useful because the ethnographer must look at the research done on their topic to determine "where holes and disagreement exist [...] and think about how the proposed work will supplement, resolve, and compliment theories currently available" (52). The idea is that the ethnographer should not say something that has already been said. The ethnographer needs to add to the ongoing conversation that already exist about their topic by either adding something new, thinking about their topic in a new way or in light of new research, changing or reworking older theories, or by creating a new theoretical framework. Heath and street that one's literature review should include the following:
One of the first steps of doing an ethnography is doing a literature review, or as the author calls them, "literature reviews" of the work that "bear some explicable relevance to work being planned" (49). This is useful because the ethnographer must look at the research done on their topic to determine "where holes and disagreement exist [...] and think about how the proposed work will supplement, resolve, and compliment theories currently available" (52). The idea is that the ethnographer should not say something that has already been said. The ethnographer needs to add to the ongoing conversation that already exist about their topic by either adding something new, thinking about their topic in a new way or in light of new research, changing or reworking older theories, or by creating a new theoretical framework. Heath and street that one's literature review should include the following:
- Conceptual framework for the research in terms of relevant bodies of theory and reviews of prior field studies
- Integrated coherent review of the major bodies of work selected.
- Buildup or lead in to the current study through delineations of how this proposed research differs from that of others and leads toward original contributions to theory. (53)
Ethnographers also have to know in advance how long they have to study their site, when they will be observing their site, and how they will be observing and collecting date (i.e. video-camera, interviews, etc.). Of course, ethnographers also have to get the consent of the people that they are observing.
Of course ethnography isn't a linear activity. It is recursive. Once ethnographers do their initial literature review, it doesn't mean that they are ready to put away the books and just focus on observing alone. Often what happens is that the ethnographer has an initial curiosity on a subject and is interested in doing an ethnography on said subject, then the ethnographer does a literature review to learn as much about his subject as they can and narrow down an area for research that will allow him to contribute something original and meaningful to the already ongoing conversation about their subject, then observe his site which will in turn cause him to ask more questions, and this will lead him into doing more research, which will in turn lead to more observations and questions, and the cycle continues. This cycle could probably go on forever. That is why it is important to set up time frame before beginning the research.
This chapter also focuses a lot on tools of the ethnographer and the ethnographer as a tool. The authors state that "necessary qualities of the best ethnographers [...] include visual acuity, keen listening skills, tolerance for detail, and capacity to integrate innumerable part into shifting holes [... and to] remain silent and communicate only as appropriate by local norms"( 57). Ethnographers also have many other tools available to them, if appropriate, such as technology, and what they authors call "spatial mapping," and "network analysis."
Basically, the bottom line is that the ethnographer needs to be as informed as possible about the field of ethnographer and the research done on her site and population before going to observe.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Chapter 1 "Language, Culture, and Learning: Ethnographic Approaches" in On Ethnography
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole ethnography thing, so bare with me. I don't think I have a good grasp of it yet, which means there will be a lot of quoting, but I will do my best to discuss it.
The chapter begins by defining a few important terms in the field of ethnography:
Language is "any symbol system which grammar provide phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical structures and rules" (4). I found it a bit odd, then, that ASL wouldn't be considered a language based on this definition because it doesn't have phonology.
Litercay, in this book, only refers to the "written representations of oral (or gestural) language" (4)
Multimodal Literacies are "systems of presentation that include written forms that are combined with oral, visual, or gestural modes" (4).
Ethnographers look at how language and literacies function within the individual and within the organization, institution or culture. Ethnographers have to be aware of the cultural context of the languages and literacies they are studying. "Added to the multiples of languages and literacies that ethnographers encounter in any single setting is the challenge of recording how these work hand in hand with cultural patterns. From pronouncing vowels to shaping stories, every speaker reflects habits, loyalties, and ideologies of language forged from cultural patterns that existed before they were born" (6).
The authors argue that "Talking, gesturing, and waving artifacts about in locally acceptable patterns make up the glue for conversation" (6). The difficulty is that these patterns change across time, space, demographics, etc. These exchanges, however, are very important because often they determine the membership status of individuals and a group.
Heath and Street argue that the ethnographers greatest challenge is to "try to understand how cultural patterns support, deny, and change structures and uses of language an multimodal literacies," and the effects that that has on the individual, groups, and institutions.
The authors then move on to talk about the importance of understanding culture in ethnogrpahy. They argue that culture shouldn't be regarded as something fixed but something alive, growing, changing, adapting, etc. So often culture is thought of as "prescriptive norms," but it is the ethnographer's job to report on culture in descriptive terms (9).
People typically think of culture as being fixed and language as a "model and vehicle of cultural processes that surround learning" but the authors argue that "As a model, language is taken as our primary representation of cultural knowledge. As a vehicle, language is considered the means by which we transmit what we know and think. Neither conveys the integrative complexities of language and interplay with culture, and most especially, with our ways of knowing and learning" (10). We learn in many ways that don't necessarily involve what we think as traditional language, and when we do use language, we have to remember that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is dependent on culture, context, etc. The ethnographer has to be aware of this when studying different situations.
This chapter focuses on three "situations of learning that ethnographers studying language and literacy enter:" (3)
1) "Individuals stiving to become and expert in something" [Think someone learning to play the guitar] Basically the ethonographer is looking at how the "uses of verbal language and other modalities related to how [the individual] learned his skill and sense of identity" (13).
2) "Groups in identity-making." "Members see themselves as 'belonging' to a group of definable characteristics they refer to as 'our culture.' Members sustain themselves through learning to be and to work together, knowing that their representation to the outside world depends on how effectively they create and maintain their identity" (14). There are many challenges facing ethnographers in this field because often times groups change without realizing that they have changed, groups portray one image of themselves to the public or to outsiders that is very different than how they really are.
3) Institutions of formal education" The important thing for ethnographers to know in this category is to not take things for face value. It is the ethnographer's job to see how the historical, political, and economical environments influence the language and norms of institutions.
The authors then move on to describe multimodalities. They state that "A primary job of ethnographers is to track, describe, and enumerate multimodaliteis as semiotic resources for their combinations-linguistic, gestural, kinestheic and visual" (21). Ethnographers basically look at how language is "embedded in other modes" (22). The way we communicate, the way we transmit information isn't only through written and verbal language; it is through our actions, our behaviors, and how we present ourselves to the world, and all of this, of course, is influenced by the historical, social, political, and economic environments in which we live.
The chapter begins by defining a few important terms in the field of ethnography:
Language is "any symbol system which grammar provide phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical structures and rules" (4). I found it a bit odd, then, that ASL wouldn't be considered a language based on this definition because it doesn't have phonology.
Litercay, in this book, only refers to the "written representations of oral (or gestural) language" (4)
Multimodal Literacies are "systems of presentation that include written forms that are combined with oral, visual, or gestural modes" (4).
Ethnographers look at how language and literacies function within the individual and within the organization, institution or culture. Ethnographers have to be aware of the cultural context of the languages and literacies they are studying. "Added to the multiples of languages and literacies that ethnographers encounter in any single setting is the challenge of recording how these work hand in hand with cultural patterns. From pronouncing vowels to shaping stories, every speaker reflects habits, loyalties, and ideologies of language forged from cultural patterns that existed before they were born" (6).
The authors argue that "Talking, gesturing, and waving artifacts about in locally acceptable patterns make up the glue for conversation" (6). The difficulty is that these patterns change across time, space, demographics, etc. These exchanges, however, are very important because often they determine the membership status of individuals and a group.
Heath and Street argue that the ethnographers greatest challenge is to "try to understand how cultural patterns support, deny, and change structures and uses of language an multimodal literacies," and the effects that that has on the individual, groups, and institutions.
The authors then move on to talk about the importance of understanding culture in ethnogrpahy. They argue that culture shouldn't be regarded as something fixed but something alive, growing, changing, adapting, etc. So often culture is thought of as "prescriptive norms," but it is the ethnographer's job to report on culture in descriptive terms (9).
People typically think of culture as being fixed and language as a "model and vehicle of cultural processes that surround learning" but the authors argue that "As a model, language is taken as our primary representation of cultural knowledge. As a vehicle, language is considered the means by which we transmit what we know and think. Neither conveys the integrative complexities of language and interplay with culture, and most especially, with our ways of knowing and learning" (10). We learn in many ways that don't necessarily involve what we think as traditional language, and when we do use language, we have to remember that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is dependent on culture, context, etc. The ethnographer has to be aware of this when studying different situations.
This chapter focuses on three "situations of learning that ethnographers studying language and literacy enter:" (3)
1) "Individuals stiving to become and expert in something" [Think someone learning to play the guitar] Basically the ethonographer is looking at how the "uses of verbal language and other modalities related to how [the individual] learned his skill and sense of identity" (13).
2) "Groups in identity-making." "Members see themselves as 'belonging' to a group of definable characteristics they refer to as 'our culture.' Members sustain themselves through learning to be and to work together, knowing that their representation to the outside world depends on how effectively they create and maintain their identity" (14). There are many challenges facing ethnographers in this field because often times groups change without realizing that they have changed, groups portray one image of themselves to the public or to outsiders that is very different than how they really are.
3) Institutions of formal education" The important thing for ethnographers to know in this category is to not take things for face value. It is the ethnographer's job to see how the historical, political, and economical environments influence the language and norms of institutions.
The authors then move on to describe multimodalities. They state that "A primary job of ethnographers is to track, describe, and enumerate multimodaliteis as semiotic resources for their combinations-linguistic, gestural, kinestheic and visual" (21). Ethnographers basically look at how language is "embedded in other modes" (22). The way we communicate, the way we transmit information isn't only through written and verbal language; it is through our actions, our behaviors, and how we present ourselves to the world, and all of this, of course, is influenced by the historical, social, political, and economic environments in which we live.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Chapter 14 in Bean: Writing Comments on Students' Papers
Bean begins his discussion by talking about how teachers often forget the "personal dimension" of grading students' papers (239). So often we got lost in a sea of run-on sentences, underdeveloped ideas, weak arguments, awkward sentences, missed punctuations, and lazy conclusions that we forget we are grading actual human beings' papers. We need to be aware of this as teachers so our comments aren't overly short or snarky. Our comments should encourage revision not dropping out of college.
Bean listed a sampling of comments left on students' paper and the reactions the students had to the comments. Here are some of my favorites:
Comment: Be more specific.
Student response: You be more specific (241).
Love it. So often "be specific" doesn't mean anything to a student. I know what when I have gotten that comment, I wondered "about what? I thought I was being specific."
Comment: You haven't really thought this through.
Response: How do you know what I thought? (241)
Comment: Try harder.
Response: I feel like kicking the teacher (241).
As you can see, all of these comments discouraged students from writing and revising when they should be encouraging students to do these things.
Shortly after Bean states that our purpose "is not to point out everything wrong with a paper but to facilitate improvement" (241). While I do agree with this to some extent, I do feel the responsibility to the writer to point out everything that I see as the reader, at least all of the higher-order concerns. I feel like when a student comes to me for help, or I am giving a student back his paper revise, he is trusting me to point out all the places that I see where he could revise his paper. I feel obligated to do so. As a student, I know I would be very frustrated if I revised my paper and re-submitted it and had cleared up all the issues that my teacher had pointed out, but I still got a B on the essay because the teacher didn't point out everything, so I didn't know that it needed more work. In fact, I would pissed.
I know it can be overwhelming for students to see all of those comments, but at least I feel like I am equipping them with everything they need to get an "A" and improve their essay. I feel like that is my job as a tutor or instructor. Plus, I don't think these comments are too overwhelming if handled appropriately. Instead of saying, "Be more specific," ask a question in the margin that the student can answer that will make his essay more specific. Psychologically this is better anyway. The student doesn't think, "Oh, I did this wrong," but "Oh, the teacher wants to know more.
I did, however, totally agree with Bean when he said that teachers' comments should prompt revision and deal primarily with higher-order concerns. He defines higher-order concerns as "ideas, organization, development, and overall clarity" (243). He then offers a list of questions to help guide revision:
-Does the draft follow the assignment?
-Does the writer have a thesis that addresses an appropriate problem or question?
-If the draft has a thesis, what is the quality of the argument?
-Is the draft effectively organized at the macro and micro level?
Again, Bean says the teacher should only comment on 2-3 areas, but as I stated before, I disagree.
I also disagree with how he suggests we handle lower order concerns. While I agree that we shouldn't line edit, he does suggest putting an "X" in the margin next to sentences that have grammatical errors. For a student who misplaced a comma, or forgot to put one in, this would be confusing as hell. A student wouldn't know if he was missing a comma, had improper punctuation, a problem with subject-verb agreement, or something totally different. I can see putting an "X" where there are misspellings or typos, but I think we should still circle other grammatical errors if we think the student does not know the rule. I think we should look for patterns of error, then explain the rule to the student. From what I hear, students are most frustrated with comments because they don't know how to go about fixing them. An "X" would just frustrate students, in my opinion.
Bean then goes on to discuss endnotes. He suggests that endnotes should" sum up the strengths of drat [...] identify main problems, [...] and make a few specific suggestions" (251). I think this is an effective model.
Basically what I gather is that we should use revision-based comments to respond to places where a student could improve his essay, praise him when he does it right, and have individual conferences with our students to make sure that they understand our comments and have a plan for revision.
Bean listed a sampling of comments left on students' paper and the reactions the students had to the comments. Here are some of my favorites:
Comment: Be more specific.
Student response: You be more specific (241).
Love it. So often "be specific" doesn't mean anything to a student. I know what when I have gotten that comment, I wondered "about what? I thought I was being specific."
Comment: You haven't really thought this through.
Response: How do you know what I thought? (241)
Comment: Try harder.
Response: I feel like kicking the teacher (241).
As you can see, all of these comments discouraged students from writing and revising when they should be encouraging students to do these things.
Shortly after Bean states that our purpose "is not to point out everything wrong with a paper but to facilitate improvement" (241). While I do agree with this to some extent, I do feel the responsibility to the writer to point out everything that I see as the reader, at least all of the higher-order concerns. I feel like when a student comes to me for help, or I am giving a student back his paper revise, he is trusting me to point out all the places that I see where he could revise his paper. I feel obligated to do so. As a student, I know I would be very frustrated if I revised my paper and re-submitted it and had cleared up all the issues that my teacher had pointed out, but I still got a B on the essay because the teacher didn't point out everything, so I didn't know that it needed more work. In fact, I would pissed.
I know it can be overwhelming for students to see all of those comments, but at least I feel like I am equipping them with everything they need to get an "A" and improve their essay. I feel like that is my job as a tutor or instructor. Plus, I don't think these comments are too overwhelming if handled appropriately. Instead of saying, "Be more specific," ask a question in the margin that the student can answer that will make his essay more specific. Psychologically this is better anyway. The student doesn't think, "Oh, I did this wrong," but "Oh, the teacher wants to know more.
I did, however, totally agree with Bean when he said that teachers' comments should prompt revision and deal primarily with higher-order concerns. He defines higher-order concerns as "ideas, organization, development, and overall clarity" (243). He then offers a list of questions to help guide revision:
-Does the draft follow the assignment?
-Does the writer have a thesis that addresses an appropriate problem or question?
-If the draft has a thesis, what is the quality of the argument?
-Is the draft effectively organized at the macro and micro level?
Again, Bean says the teacher should only comment on 2-3 areas, but as I stated before, I disagree.
I also disagree with how he suggests we handle lower order concerns. While I agree that we shouldn't line edit, he does suggest putting an "X" in the margin next to sentences that have grammatical errors. For a student who misplaced a comma, or forgot to put one in, this would be confusing as hell. A student wouldn't know if he was missing a comma, had improper punctuation, a problem with subject-verb agreement, or something totally different. I can see putting an "X" where there are misspellings or typos, but I think we should still circle other grammatical errors if we think the student does not know the rule. I think we should look for patterns of error, then explain the rule to the student. From what I hear, students are most frustrated with comments because they don't know how to go about fixing them. An "X" would just frustrate students, in my opinion.
Bean then goes on to discuss endnotes. He suggests that endnotes should" sum up the strengths of drat [...] identify main problems, [...] and make a few specific suggestions" (251). I think this is an effective model.
Basically what I gather is that we should use revision-based comments to respond to places where a student could improve his essay, praise him when he does it right, and have individual conferences with our students to make sure that they understand our comments and have a plan for revision.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Review of the Halls of Poetry
The Halls of Poetry creative works reading took place in the Hall of Languages, room 203, on Monday, October 19th, at 4:30 PM. Students from Dr. Jacob's undergraduate poetry class and Dr. Reid's graduate creative writing class too the stage to share their poetry, prose, and song.
The event was a success. Lots of people showed up, including folds outside of the creative writing classes. Dr. Jacobs required her students to read, so there were a lot of fresh faces at the podium. I overheard many folks say that they enjoyed being able to hear the new voices and see the new faces. I think this was a great way to introduce new students into Commerce's writing community. It also served as a way for more experienced readers to find a new audience for their works and learn new techniques from writers that they had never heard before.
I also took the opportunity to get many of these people involved with The Mayo Review, so that was good.
Hopefully this is an event we can do every year.
The event was a success. Lots of people showed up, including folds outside of the creative writing classes. Dr. Jacobs required her students to read, so there were a lot of fresh faces at the podium. I overheard many folks say that they enjoyed being able to hear the new voices and see the new faces. I think this was a great way to introduce new students into Commerce's writing community. It also served as a way for more experienced readers to find a new audience for their works and learn new techniques from writers that they had never heard before.
I also took the opportunity to get many of these people involved with The Mayo Review, so that was good.
Hopefully this is an event we can do every year.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Mayo Review Open Mic Night Interview
This is my semi-formal interview. I talked a little bit with Brandon, the Editor of The Mayo Review, about the Open Mic Night, and I am also going to use some of my own knowledge as the Assistant Editor to talk about the the event.
We planned the Open Mic Night for Thursday, October 22, 2009. We were planning on having an open mic night sometime in October before we even knew about the Commerce Week on Writing, but we decided to move the event to the actual Week on Writing so we could join in on the festivities. Our Submissions deadline is also coming up, November 2nd, so we figured it would be great opportunity to really get the word out one last time.
We decided to host it at the Cowhill Express since we held our first open mic at The Spot. The Cowhill Express seems to draw in just as large of a crowd as The Spot, and it is just the perfect atmosphere for an open mic night.
I think this open mic got a lot of extra publicity because of the Commerce Week on Writing. I know several teachers, myself included, gave students extra credit for attending the event. We also did our usual advertising by placing flyers up in the Hall of Languages and advertising the event of Facebook.
I did not get to attend the event because I got a sinus infection and was having some problems with my blood pressure, but I did speak with Brandon briefly about the event's success. He said:
"Things went really great. LOTS of new faces and a nice long list of readers/singers. A few people said from the mic how they thought Open Mic was great and that they planned on coming back. One of the guys who read also turned out to be someone from the East Texan who later spoke to me and Toni, so it looks like we'll get a little more publicity."
I think it is great that there were a lot of new faces and that people said they had never been to open mic nights before and planned on coming back. I was also happy to hear that we are going to get a little more publicity in the East Texan. That's what the Commerce Week on Writing is about, right, getting new people to think about, talk about, and enjoy writing. I would say mission accomplished.
We planned the Open Mic Night for Thursday, October 22, 2009. We were planning on having an open mic night sometime in October before we even knew about the Commerce Week on Writing, but we decided to move the event to the actual Week on Writing so we could join in on the festivities. Our Submissions deadline is also coming up, November 2nd, so we figured it would be great opportunity to really get the word out one last time.
We decided to host it at the Cowhill Express since we held our first open mic at The Spot. The Cowhill Express seems to draw in just as large of a crowd as The Spot, and it is just the perfect atmosphere for an open mic night.
I think this open mic got a lot of extra publicity because of the Commerce Week on Writing. I know several teachers, myself included, gave students extra credit for attending the event. We also did our usual advertising by placing flyers up in the Hall of Languages and advertising the event of Facebook.
I did not get to attend the event because I got a sinus infection and was having some problems with my blood pressure, but I did speak with Brandon briefly about the event's success. He said:
"Things went really great. LOTS of new faces and a nice long list of readers/singers. A few people said from the mic how they thought Open Mic was great and that they planned on coming back. One of the guys who read also turned out to be someone from the East Texan who later spoke to me and Toni, so it looks like we'll get a little more publicity."
I think it is great that there were a lot of new faces and that people said they had never been to open mic nights before and planned on coming back. I was also happy to hear that we are going to get a little more publicity in the East Texan. That's what the Commerce Week on Writing is about, right, getting new people to think about, talk about, and enjoy writing. I would say mission accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
