Elizabeth+Shcoedel

After searching the internet for what seemed to be forever on a blog related to the problems in the English language, ways we learn it or if some ways are better I came across an article titled Not the best way to teach English. I figured this article would suffice the criteria, and the main point on the article was just that, some of the worst ways to teach English. The main focus was how certain foreign students are forced to learn English in a repetitous pattern, where memorization of the examples can get them an A on the exam. They speak in Urdu and have a translator speak in English, usually not fluent English, and go back and forth with the examples until the words are drilled into the student's brain. They generally only learn simple statements, with no depth, creativity or purpose. Similar to the writing agendas that they have: simply copying and pasting from the black board to the notebook. Basically what the author of this blog wanted to get across is that learning English requires activity, creativity, sturcture and an instructor who can fluently speak the langauage. Many of the students are handicapped by the instructor because there is so much going back in forth between the native language and trying to learn English, they aren't focused on just English. While reading this essay I couldn't believe the fact of how students were taught in such a montone class. There was no creativity, or emphasis on usage of English language. Simply drills done over and over until it is memorized by the students. There truly doesn't seem to be learning or grasping of the language just memorization. Another thing that was shocking to me was that government teachers themselves are teaching these courses and not all of them can speak the language fluently themselves. It is like the blind leading the blind. To be completelty honest I am not sure exactly who this blog is directed too. I suppose any linguistic or person interested in how some of those who do not speak English learn the language may be interested in this blog. However this blog is very professional, definetly not a slacker from yahoo answers giving there two bits. This blog has much thought and is done in a manner that seems to be very educational. Sadly though no body has wanted to post any comments on this blog so I cannot explain any sort of postings.

Liz - A good summary. A bit skimpy on the analysis--lots from the handout you didn't cover. But good thinking in what you did address. CHECK ~ Prof. Wendt

Assignment 2

In the story about a large deranged, violent man who is being restraint against his will is now "sparring" with a tired, meticulous, cruel doctor. Bringing up the question who was a brute, I had to relate the characeristics to my to be believed defintion of a brute. After some thought I realized my defintion of a brute is that of a person who can not be held accountable for there actions, they show a lack of human stability and are now resembelilng animilistic characteristics. Granted both individuals were savage in there own ways, to recap the patient was described as "the man is hugely drunk-- toxic, fuming, murderous-- a great mythic beast broken loose in the city..."(page 420). Clearly in this mere sentence we have an idea of a monsterous creature, something that is ont even a human, this patient has been deamed a beast. Also he is hugely drunk, toxic and fuming, clearly he is not in a state of mind which a sober person would have, and his actions are that of pure instinct, no proper thought process can occur when one is so inebriated. Now to take a look at the doctor--hmm he is not drunk for one. A quick look at the doctor one would see this image he is tired, professional, but eager to leave. Views change though when we realize what he thinks of his new patient. "I am ravished by the sight of him, the raw, untreated flesh, his very wildness which suggests less a human than a great beautiful beast" (page 421). Now we have a professional doctor viewing his patient as something less human, animal like, brutish. As the qurell between restraints heats up the patients thrashes more and becomes vulgar, even though he is bound at all ligament, he is at the hospital for medical reasons, he is crazed in the mind and refuses to lie still. Sadly the doctor does have the upper hand, being in control of the situation, he becomes cruel to the injured 'beast'. Piercing his ears and sewing him (the patient) to the mattress which he is still restlessly squirming on. Eventually the patient is pinned, the tortureous act has indeed imbolizied this driven individual. Now the clear thinking, doctor grins at his patient, fully aware of what he is doing. "And I grin. It is the cruelest grin of my life. Torturers must grin like that, behaeaders and operators of racks' (page 422). Clearly this shows exactly the type of person the doctor is being, a cruel tortureous, thinking, methodical man. He knew his actions were that similar to those who beheaded individuals. Now did the patient have the same kind of mental capacity. Was he thinking; "Hey I am acting like a jackass, kicking and screaming all over the place." No, he did not have the mentality. When a dog is corned, beatten, or is scared, he will fight back even if he has not done so before, its natures way to survive to react in violently in certain situations. The exact same way in which the patient was reacting to his new enviroment. The doctor never left his enviroment, therefore his mentality should not have altered in ways in which animilistic behaviors occur. The doctor was not drugged/drunk, stabbed/wounded, confused about his wearabouts. No the doctor was cruel in his actions because they were completely "humane." He did not attribute any of his actions from characteristics of beasts, it was purely himself being tortureous. Oveall by my definition the patient was more brutal; he was incompetant, was thrashing whilst two guards drug him in, deranged, and even described as an animal. The doctor was no saint, but he was no brute either. His overall actions made me believe he was in a well thinking mode, competant, and annoyed with the patient, leading him to his cruel methods to treat the patient.