アニュアルレポート

あーアニュアルレポートというものを書かされて大変だった。

6時間ぐらいかかった～。これ毎年書くのね。

リサーチとティーチング、去年の活動についてのレポートなんだけど、

1年間の生徒の評価を全部分析してその結果とかを

「お話スタイル」で書かないといけないところがもううざすぎだった。

それにしてもかなりアメリカ式セルフプロモーション。笑

This was my first year at Chapman as an assistant professor of U.S. multicultural literatures,

arriving from the University of Virginia where I taught for the prior seven years. I came with

the expectation that much would depend on some flexibility on my part to modify my

pedagogical strategies to meet the specific needs of Chapman students. An accidental element

of surprise became advantageous in making this transition. I was initially assigned to carry a 3-

2 teaching load for this first year, but due to technical problems in the spring course listings, I

took on a 3-1-1 (one course for the spring and one in summer). As I prepared material for

lectures, discussion, and graded essays over the course of three semesters, I had longer time

to make a more accurate assessment of Chapman students’ strengths and weaknesses in

order to find the best structure, material, and assignments for their intellectual development.

As a result, I feel that I have established a comfortable basis from which to concentrate on

further refinement of my teaching in 2009-2010.

The amount and difficulty of reading assignments, subsequently the pace of the course,

remained roughly on the same level as my courses at UVA. As I wanted to design courses

that would strike the best balance between the needs of Chapman students and my own

teaching objective of introducing key concepts and debates at the forefront of the scholarship

in the field, I took pains to incorporate fresh material to find the best match during the course

of this year. I was pleased that students responded positively to the selections of primary texts

for my courses, which some of them found “fantastic,” “amazing,” “posed many questions,”

and “exposed [her] to a wide range of authors [she] wouldn’t have otherwise read.” Some

students seemed to find the reading load heavy and the speed too fast, but another student

responded that the fast pace “pushed us to learn more.” During the course of the year, I grew

inclined to encourage hard-working students who take on the challenge rather than be overly

accommodating on this point. At a colleague’s suggestion, I also started to administer quizzes

from time to time in order to reward the students who came to class prepared. Although a few

students disliked reading quizzes and they had not been a part of my usual teaching practice,

there seems to be a need for them, as a student noted somewhat grudgingly that it added

some “incentive.”

In written assignments, I encouraged students to make their own connections, while directing

them to spend a significant amount of time shaping their argument and finding strong textual

support. In evaluating papers, I drew from the English Department Assessment rubric, and

strived to give comments that would offer each student some pointed guidance on how to

strengthen their ideas and improve their written work. I was glad to see that some students

found the assignments useful in making connections between texts, and also that my feedback

registered as being helpful. I acknowledge one student’s clear complaint that I was “a hard

grader.” I admit to upholding certain standards in the quality of written work, and perhaps it

takes more effort in receiving an A in my class than students would like. But it is also true that

a fair number of students have received an A- or an A throughout the year, and as I do make

myself available for consultation on papers before or after an assignment, I can only

encourage students to take more advantage of my time in the future. For my own part, I

would like to focus on doing my best to give them as much time as possible in giving topics

early and in getting the papers back to them as quickly as possible.

One consistent emphasis in my pedagogy has been my vision of the class as an intellectual

community. I recall having an unexpected difficulty with this for one class in the fall semester

which a student described as having “a bad group of students.” Still, I was pleased that what

stood out in students’ evaluations for that class and others as the most effective way of

promoting learning was overwhelmingly class discussion; they described the class discussions

as “rich and fulfilling,” “interesting,” “excellent,” “in-depth,” “productive,” and “thought-

provoking.” It was nice to see that I was perceived as “approachable,” “kind,” “patient,” and

“[having] wonderful insight,” while most heartened that my teaching gave the impression that I

“consider[ed] everyone’s view.” As I try to provide a safe environment that nurtures dialog

and exchange, I was glad to see that students felt it was not just “fun” but also “welcoming,”

“relaxed and encouraging,” and gratified to see one student express that “hearing other

students’ views broadened my mind.” While some students felt that the discussions lacked

“structure” and “control,” I feel that it is precisely the freedom in the organic nature of

conversation that allows for many of the positive reactions. In addition to discussion, I also

assigned an in-class presentation comparing two passages from our readings. I noted that

students responded positively to this different form of intellectual exchange, which involved

more preparation and gave equal opportunity to each student in showcasing their unique

sensibilities and appreciating the resourcefulness of their classmates.

But while I was committed to privileging students’ own reading experiences and class

discussion as a predominant method of critical engagement with the text, I did make a

significant change in my pedagogy in response to Chapman students who indicated a demand

for a stronger emphasis on lecture. I shifted the weight I placed on offering excerpts of

interviews, reviews, critical debates, and scholarly essays that would provide cultural and

historical context, while making sure that we were making strong connections to the reading

assignment. I found that these outside sources allowed me to further modify my courses to the

needs of each class, and believe that they actually generated a much more animated

discussion. I saw that students’ positive responses to “handouts” started to outweigh a request

for “background information,” and in my summer session, a student wrote that “the fact that

she had her interpretations of the book but also had various forms of commentary from others

who have also read the books made my learning experience better in that it enhanced my

appreciation of the book […] way more.”

In the spring, I started collaborating with Professor Carmichael Peters in his Honors Program

and Professor Etsuko Cook in the Foreign Languages Department in designing new courses

that would benefit students outside of the English department as well. The result is this year’s

course offerings of HON 309 (American Storytellers) and ENG 447 (Japanese Literature in

Translation). While these are entirely new courses, I am enthusiastic about pursuing the

possibilities of interdisciplinary collaboration, and contributing to the breadth of courses to be

offered at Wilkinson College.

MEPRIS

院生時代、ある日本人女性に、博士論文は何ですか、と聞いたときに

「ヘンリージェームズ一筋」とか答えられたことがあった。

40代後半になってPhD論文をようやく書く時間が出来た、というひとだった。

19世紀イギリス文学やるひとでも、かっこいい研究してるひとっていうのはいるので

（今時シングルオーサーはないだろ）＋（ヘンリージェームズについて今書く必要性って何）

みたいな反応をこらえ、「え、で、理論の角度はどういう、、」と一応聞くとわりと得意げに

「あたしは理論は全然やりませんの」みたいなことをいう。

「クロースリーディングのみ！」ってあなたは1950年代から来たのか？

同僚にも20年教えてきてこないだPhDをとってアシスタントプロフェサーに昇格したひとがいる。

いいひとなんだろうけど、このひとと私はあまり仲がいいとはいえない。

最近気付いたんだけど、私が彼女の研究を高く評価してないからだと思う。

その同僚はオースティン一筋研究らしいのね、、

先週こないだ書き上げたというその博士論文の話を聞かされたんだけど

「ええ、オースティンの小説のマイナーなキャラクターを読み解くというものです」

みたいなことを長々と説明されて辟易した。

正確には新しい学長に長々と説明している場を逃れられなくて、辟易した。

だからそれ20年古いんだよ！て。

いや、実はそのアイディア自体が悪いとはいわない！

でもスタンフォードのAlex Wolochが書いたThe One vs. the Many が2003年にもう出てるよ？

オースティン含めクラシックスからディケンズまで多岐に渡って恐ろしく緻密な名作的研究。

20年古いと思われる題材を斬新にアップデートしたかっこいい本。

その得意げな顔を見ると読んでないね？

あ、大学院Claremont College、、道理で、、

こういうの良くない。チームプレイできてない。

そもそも、どうでもいいことで怒ってる時間はないはず。

本当の問題はここから先のシビアさで、彼女もそれを越えないといけないのは同じ。

NB)　個人的にはヘンリージェームズもジェーンオースティンも大好きです。念のため。

ステレオタイピング

チャプマンで教え始める前はUVAで7年間教えていたわけだけれども

ここも2年目になると、やはり生徒は違う感じだなあと思う。

生徒のレベルとしては多分同じぐらいだと思うんだけど、「タイプ」っていうのがいるのね。

20人のフレッシュマンクラスだったら必ず2、3人はいる。

UVAにいてチャプマンでいないと思うのは、ブロンドソロリティーガールズ。

肩ぐらいまでのストレートブロンドで、ポロシャツの襟を立ててパールをつける感じの

かわいいんだけれどもかなり個性のない子たち。

名前もケイティーとかアシュレーとかミシェルとかで、誰が誰だかわかんない。

頭がいいことは少ないんだけど、おとなしくて素直なので扱いやすい。

チャプマンにいてUVAにいなかったのは、生意気なリッチボーイズ。これが扱いにくいんだ、本当に。

ポイントとして髪形がほぼ同じ。ジェルで真ん中らへんを立たせたキューピー髪。

たいてい頭の回転は速いほうなんだけど、基本的につまらない顔をしていて

ひとを小馬鹿にする態度をとる傾向ありなのでかなり授業とってほしくない感じ。

まあだけど、それと同じぐらいの割合ですごくおっとりした気立ての良いちょっと太めの

チャプマンボーイズというのももうひとつのタイプとしていて、彼らは本当にスイートなので

授業がたいてい和むことが多い。

プラスマイナスゼロってところかな。