A Synthesis of My Learning in English
Jennifer Leighton
April 19, 2005
Goal:
-To recognize that initial responses to texts are often different from responses made after reflection, or in different circumstances
Here is what
Happened:
After reading the text of The Crucible and then attending the actual performance of the play, my impressions of Ezekiel Cheever and John Proctor were altered.
Here is what it Means:
My original thoughts on Ezekiel Cheever
after reading the script, was that I thought of him as more of a friend to the
Proctor’s. I pictured him as a man who
cared about the Proctor family. He was
"an honest tailor" as quoted from Act II. In Act II, I held the notion that he felt
sorry for Elizabeth Proctor and did not believe that she would be found
guilty. I did not think that Cheever wanted to take
My first impressions of John Proctor after reading the script
are outlined in the Believing and the Crucible Forum: “I had originally saw John Proctor as a man
who was unfaithful to his wife after committing adultery, and a man who really
did not love her that much. Perhaps he was only with her because divorces were
unheard of at this time. I pictured their relationship to be much more cold than it was represented in the play”. I had a hard time getting past the idea that
someone could still be a good person even after cheating on their spouse with a
girl who they considered to be a “child” as John referred to Abigail in Act
I.
After watching the production of The Crucible, my impressions of Ezekiel Cheever have completely changed. As I wrote in my reaction after the play on the Crucible Forum: “After seeing the play, I saw Cheever as being slimy. I don't know whether the director really played this up or whether this was what Miller had always intended. I guess Cheever is basically a man who will do anything to get ahead, even sell out his neighbours”. I no longer see him as a friend of the Proctor family. As soon as his presence was made known on stage, it was apparent that he was a man obsessed with power, and that he was willing to sell anyone out to achieve his goals such as being accepted by the judges. I am not sure whether this was the director’s doing or whether this was what Miller had intended, but my original impressions of this character were completely off from the actual production. Everything about Cheever’s presence on stage annoyed me. He was “slimy”. Everything from his facial expressions, his reactions to other characters on stage and his smugness when he actually did have something to say represented this, as outlined in Sarah Mahoney’s response to the play.
My impressions of John Proctor changed a lot as well, after
viewing the production. The relationship
between John and Elizabeth that I had once thought of as “cold”, was not at all presented this way in the production; if
anything, the exact opposite: “In the
play I could see that he truly loved
This evidence of how my reactions to the characters Ezekiel Cheever and John Proctor were changed from reading the script and then watching the production of the play, represent how texts can easily be interpreted in many different ways. It is very possible that had I have studied the script more closely, perhaps I would have had a closer understanding of how Miller had intended his characters to be portrayed. I am not saying that the director to this specific production portrayed exactly what Miller had intended, but I think she was at a much higher position to make that decision. This episode especially points out the interpretation of texts. Many people can hold many different views on the same piece of writing. The use of language and dialect can influence and sway the reader in a particular direction, but the interpretation is essentially up to the reader. This is what makes the reading of texts so interesting. I found reading the script and having time to reflect on the text, then attending the play to be more beneficial in terms of really understanding what is happening and even knowing a little bit of background information when attending a production. I plan on trying this again to see if my original impressions are altered after the production.
Goal:
- To understand more about the Internet and the way resources are made available on it, and how to evaluate them
- To be able write more effectively
- To be better able to write in a way that makes a difference to others
Here is what Happened:
The episode which highlights my learning and which relates to these three goals of English is my inquiry group’s composition of the John Kerry Report; as well as our seminars where the report was torn apart because we had no knowledge of our sources and as a result, our report only really reflected one view, those who were extremely against John Kerry.
Here is what it Means:
Coming into Truth in Society, I never questioned internet
sites. I thought of them as a valuable
resource for information. For example,
in my final research report for high school on the politics of
After realizing that I need to know
who the sources are, as outlined in my “noteself.htm”: “For the February reports, it will be very
important for me to reference every source as I find it. This will make that process so much
easier. I will also be sure to look up
all of my sources and try to find sources that the reader
will most likely think are the most valid – I mean I do not want the
reader to think the source comes from just anyone or anywhere. I will also try to research each source so
that I will be prepared for questions thrown at me like last time”. I realized that there are very few authors on
the Vietnamese website who make themselves known. The actual website is not recognized, and if
I were to make an assumption about who the authors of this website were, I
would assume that they were anti-war protestors. These are not average, everyday people like I
was supposed to research. I certainly
did not make it clear in my report that the information given was not the
opinions and thoughts of average, everyday people. I only wrote “these are the views of the
Vietnamese”, not “these are the views and opinions of some Vietnamese people
who appear to be anti-war protestors”.
Although I understood how important using valuable and credible sources was after our first seminars, the English seminar workshop really hit home on this issue. I became aware that one must be clear about what is being said or must be able to make the distinction between the writer and what is coming from other sources. After looking through my English notes from the workshop on documentation, I jotted down examples of how to introduce a source into my own writing: “According to biographical information available. . .” or “Here’s one that I think makes sense to me. . .”. By doing this, the writer is saying that the material shown is not just the writer’s opinion, but people in authoritative positions agree. It is saying that the information is provided by a person who has studied the topic or issue. It is incredibly important to look up the author and find out who they are. In terms of web pages – has the webpage been approved? Is its work cited? Providing information on the source allows the reader to know who is speaking and it allows the paper to carry more authority because it is not just the opinions of the writer, but also the writings of people who are well educated in a particular area. In the future I will most definitely cite my sources properly because quite frankly, I want my work to carry more authority and to be taken seriously.
Goal:
-To be more aware that writing is a powerful and necessary means of discovering what one thinks and making sense of it
Here is what
Happened:
At the beginning of the first semester, we looked at Reuters and CanWest Global; in particular, an article in the National Post. As I wrote in my learning reflection 2: “We compared the two to see exactly what the National Post changed from the Reuters article. Our class suggested that there were possible subliminal messages in the National Post’s article”. The National Post described a Middle Eastern Group as “terrorists”.
Here is what it Means:
Before coming into Truth in Society, I thought that all information in the news such as newspapers and daily televised news programs like CNN, were factual. I never questioned what was being said. I thought of the news in an authoritative way. I figured, “they have done the research, they know the truth or what is really happening”. It did not occur to me to question whether or not what was being said was really a factual portrayal of the event that took place. It never occurred to me that large corporate companies owned different news agencies, or that these news agencies could portray the biases of these corporations. Most importantly, I did not consider the power of language at this point. It did not occur to me prior to this class discussion on Reuters, that news agencies could use words to manipulate its readers and viewers into thinking a certain way with the use of their language.
After our class discussion on the Reuters article, I wrote in my journal article 2: “Just the way things are written can subconsciously make one think a certain way. I felt that the National Post mislead the reader into believing that the Middle Eastern group being reported on were terrorists. It was at this point that I realized just how powerful language is. I realized that by changing a single word, a person can have their entire perception of a particular issue/subject altered. Studying these two articles reinforces the question of what is true in the media, are we constantly being fed deceptive information?” I have not answered this question, but I do think that I need to be critical when reading anything.
From now on, especially when I am reading an article or
watching television – basically anything in the media, I question whether or
not the information is entirely true. For example, I was watching a
segment shown on CNN that had a program on the “US’s Liberation of the Iraqi
People”. This segment was showing how the
Now that I look back on how I never questioned what I was being told by the news, I realize how ridiculous this is. After the day in class when we looked at the Reuters article, I questioned why I put the news such as newspapers and daily televised news programs in such an authoritative position. As of now, I believe that I took their information as factual because they presented actual pictures, footage and statistics. I considered these things to be evidence for what was being said. It was enough for me. It never occurred to me that they could twist these pictures, footages and statistics into whatever they wanted the viewers to believe. I never questioned whether these forms of media (newspapers and televised news programs) were biased. Again, I figured, “they have done the research, they know what is really happening”.
The National Post, using a word like terrorist, is making a powerful claim on their part. The news agency should not be using this term unless they really mean it; it is not a term that should be used loosely because of the power that this word possesses at this moment. By using a certain word or term such as terrorist, readers and viewers are flooded with connotations. These connotations therefore influence the opinions the readers and viewers have after reading or watching the news. For instance, when I hear the word “terrorist”, I instantly think of September 11th, mass murderers, attackers, instigators of war and suicide bombers. After coming to realize this, and being more aware of the power of certain terms, I will be extra cautious with my writing. I do not want to manipulate my readers as the National Post did to me.
Goal:
-To be more aware that writing is a powerful and necessary means of discovering what one thinks and making sense of it
Here is what
Happened:
Writing an inkshed each time after reading a text such as “The Banality of Evil Reconsidered” in Criminology, has been beneficial to my learning in the Aquinas program. Because of Nicole’s response to my writing, I came to a new and deeper understanding of terms like “normal”, “good” and “evil”.
Here is what it Means:
Coming into Truth in Society, I never questioned terms like “normal”, “good” and “evil”. These were terms that I took their meanings for granted and I did not bother to question whether I really know their true meanings. Although, if someone had asked me if I knew what the term meant, I would have probably laughed at them and asked them if they were joking.
I also had a difficult time appreciating inksheds when I first entered this class. I did not mind them at first, but they eventually became tiresome. I did not really see what their purpose served. This came to a peak at the beginning of second semester in English class. I did not want to have to read and respond to other people’s reading logs. I could not see the purpose of it. I wanted to just have a discussion immediately without having to comment on five other people’s work.
I know realize that inksheds do not only provide one with the opportunity to describe what they have learned, such as building on one’s knowledge of a certain topic, what they understand, how they relate to and feel about the article, but it also allows the individual to get feedback from other colleagues. The feedback, such as the comments Nicole made after reading my inkshed, gave me the opportunity to consider ideas that I had not thought of myself. In most cases, my colleagues push me to think further and deeper into a particular topic. Nicole wrote: “How do we make ourselves normal and good? Why then do we like to think of ‘them’ as hateful and evil?” and “what IS evil?” Nicole asked me some very challenging questions, she forced me to question what seemed to be simple terms: “normal”, “good” and “evil”. It was easy for me to say that I knew what these words meant, but when asked to actually define them, I could not think of a straightforward answer. Nicole’s comments are just one example of how I am constantly being challenged by my colleagues through writing inksheds.
I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of the Aquinas program; the inksheds allow the class to interpret the texts from a wide range of different perspectives. This, I think, aids each individual to become more open-minded, rather than interpreting a text from one perspective. We are challenged by conflicting perspectives or opinions and forced to look at a wider range of interpretations and beliefs. If I have learned anything from this program, it is to appreciate how important it is to gain knowledge from a wide range of perspectives. It is important to do so, because writing from only one perspective is biased and excludes other theories or possibilities. Had I have not shared my inkshed with Nicole, perhaps her understanding of the text would have been different. Reading the inksheds of other colleagues allows us to feed off of one another. The content in my inkshed caused Nicole to reflect upon it and write down questions. This furthered my understanding by questioning what she had written and allowed me to reflect upon it. Hopefully my inkshed contributed to her understanding of the text as well.
Realizing how constructive different perspectives can be in group work, has affected my understanding of how group work should be conducted. In high school, group work meant coming to one theory that everyone could agree on. In this program it is often better to illustrate conflicting views, because it allows other people to derive their own conclusions, rather than telling them what to think. I now realize that it is okay to disagree with a member in my group. Just as with my inkshed that Nicole commented on, this allows me to take it a step further and question why we have conflicting views. What circumstances or events have caused each of us to have different beliefs about the same topic? All of this relates back to how important it is to use the input of others to further one’s understanding of a particular topic. It is important to build upon any prior knowledge in order to gain a fuller and deeper understanding of a particular topic. After becoming aware of how important the input from others is in determining how my writing affects my readers, I will now ask others to read over all of my work.
I now grasp the concept that there is a difference between reading another person’s work and having that person state their opinion. Writing down one’s thoughts is in most cases, is premeditated. One will sit and ponder how they would like to word something, to get their point across most effectively. This is why I think inksheds are so important. People’s opinions are much more calculated and efficient. When one states their opinion, there is a lot less time to think things over. A lot of times what comes out is not exactly what the speaker had intended. A person’s language is a lot different in writing and speaking as well. There are many people in our Aquinas class – like Megan, whose language in writing and speaking is entirely different. There are many times when I would read her work and have to look twice at who wrote it. Megan writes much more effectively than she speaks. Her writing is much more formal, whereas her speaking uses a lot of slang. Most of this, is probably attributed to the fact that she is a rather shy and quiet girl. I always get a lot more out of her writing than I do when she speaks. Becoming more aware of the differences between written work and speech, has allowed me to appreciate reading the ideas of others as opposed to hearing what they have to say.