Douglas Hesse begins his article, "Teachers as Students, Reflecting Resistance" with a pair of anecdotes. So in response, allow me to share my own anecdote regarding my personal experience with resistance in the post-graduate classroom.

My first semester as a grad student, I had to read an article by Mary Poovey concerning accounting practices in eighteenth century England. In class, I commented that I found the writing unnecessarily overwrought and actually counterproductive to the writer's ability to make any sort of salient argument. This was the first and last time that I railed against the discursive style used by modern academicians.

My resistance stemmed from my own frustration at how difficult a time I had making heads or tails of the article. As someone who prides themselves on their intelligence (as I'm sure we all do, or we wouldn't be pursuing post-graduate degrees), I was embarrassed at my inability to translate egghead to English. In retrospect, however, I understand that my failure to comprehend this article is something that every first-time reader of dense academic literature encounters. Over time, the category of articles that I consider dense and overwritten has shrunk. While I still don't always feel that the language used by academicians is as straightforward as it should be, I've come to accept the fact that this is the way things are and no amount of outcry on my part will change it. Therefore, if I can't change the system, then at least on this particular issue, I'll have to grudgingly conform. Overcoming this resistance is a natural process, and one our students must undergo as well.

One interesting suggestion that Dr. Walcher made regarding my proposed readings for English 102 is that I should pick an article on technology written by physicists or engineers, something full of jargon and terminology impossible for the layperson to understand. While this is a potentially risky move, I decided that I will give it a shot. My students already complain that the class text book is boring and often doesn't make any sense, so I'm a hundred percent certain that not a single one will finish the physics/engineering article I assign them, but having them attempt it will provide an interesting opportunity for discussion in class regarding who the article's audience is and whether it might be successful in conveying its intended meaning to that audience. In other words, I want to provide my students with the same opportunity I had as a newbie grad student: to understand that not all types of texts are intended to be understood by all people, and even the discourse that takes place within our own communities can incite a resistance in the reader that can only be overcome with practice.

This space intentionally left blank

I've never blogged before, though I'm not entirely resistant to the idea. I haven't read the article yet, so I'll say something more when I have something more to say.