Wow, grammar is obsolete. I would have given argument to that before reading this article, but after reading it, I think I knew it all along. What place does grammar hold in the teaching of writing? Throughout the reading, I referred back to my own teachings and experiences and I think I agree with Hartwell. For example, as part of a Daily Oral Language warm-up activity, my students correct incorrect sentences (The boy take a bath). Everyone one of my students can tell me 'take' should be 'takes', but there is almost a daily routine where I am pulling my hair out asking over and over again, "WHY? COME ON, YOU KNOW THIS! WHY?" Exactly, why? Why do they need to know this? They fix the sentences, as readers, they know the rules, why do they have to know why? I only know because my first year teaching, I looked it up. As a 23 year old with degrees in creative writing and elementary education, I had absolutely NO IDEA why. Should my ten and eleven year olds?
I like Hartwell's rule Grammar 1. Like the rules above, native speakers naturally know certain rules, even if they can't tell you the Grammar 2 reason. An example of this is student writing. Students write quickly, like a race to get the words out of their heads and onto the paper. There are A LOT of mistakes. But if that student stands up to read that mistake filled story to the class out loud, he will naturally correct most of the mistakes and the listeners won't even know about the written errors. I have seen this countless times as well. The writer (now reading aloud) inherently knows how it is supposed to sound, and reads it correctly, despite the grammatical errors in the actual writing. They know Grammar 1 and could care less about Grammar 2 and only care about Grammar 4 on the rubric and their grades.
I think one of the best points Hartley made was in his description of the study done in the New Zealand High School. "After two years, no differences were detected in writing performance... after three years small differences...these were more than offset by the less positive attitude they showed toward their English studies" (Hartley, 206-707). Grammar 2 and 4 are boring and make kids hate writing. When I'm pulling my hair out asking my students WHY, their eyes are rolling back.
This really has opened my eyes a bit about my teaching practices and the emphasis I put on certain concepts. Will I throw out all grammatical concepts? No way, cold turkey never works. But I will be more conscientious about what I am teaching and how it will make my students better writers.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
"The Making of Knowledge in Composition"
The beginnings of this book was very interesting. It brought many thoughts to my mind and though I take issue with many of the statements (the teaching of novels and poems is insane, possibly un-American [North, 12], are you kidding me?!) I'll focus on the article's dealings with the teaching of Composition.
The "tripod" of English studies, language, literature, and composition (North, 10) makes a lot of sense. I have never really thought through the breakdown of English, but that's as great a place to start as any. I understand why academic programs and professors leaned toward teaching language and literature (though un-American) and shied away from teaching composition. Language is very concrete, black and white, based on prescriptive rules of grammar, usage, spelling and all the other fun stuff. There are right answers and there are wrong answers. Literature, insane and in all its glory, is the reading of already written pieces, the dissecting, analyzing, and criticizing of written pieces. And though it is not always concrete (somebody please tell that to an undergraduate British Literature professor I had) it is concrete enough to come up with satisfying answers to assuage the ever-analyzing minds of literature buffs.
Composition, as I am beginning to understand from our readings and our class discussions, is an all together different beast. We discussed theorists and at least 14 aims of discourse (scientific, dialectic, rhetorical, poetic, rational, emotional, ethical, technical, creative, expository, descriptive, persuasive, narrative, analysis... and I didn't start taking notes until about 20 minutes in). Try fitting that into a freshman composition class (or a fifth grade writing curriculum). Teaching writing is not easy. I love to write and I love to teach writing, but I reflect a lot on my teaching and wonder often how effective I am. I'm not talking about test scores either, I'm talking about teaching my student to write. There is no concrete answer for writing (outside of the language aspects). Writing is subjective, personal, emotive, in the moment, opinionated, and countless other adjectives. "Composition...provide second class academic citizens with a way out of their academic 'ghetto'" (North, 14). You can't fit those on a rubric and the state sure as heck cannot authentically assess those qualities.
I can understand why there has been trouble defining Composition and its aim and I agree that "in English teacher we have relied too long on our best guesses" (North, 16). I am taking this class to find my definition of the aims of Composition and I am tired of guessing.
The "tripod" of English studies, language, literature, and composition (North, 10) makes a lot of sense. I have never really thought through the breakdown of English, but that's as great a place to start as any. I understand why academic programs and professors leaned toward teaching language and literature (though un-American) and shied away from teaching composition. Language is very concrete, black and white, based on prescriptive rules of grammar, usage, spelling and all the other fun stuff. There are right answers and there are wrong answers. Literature, insane and in all its glory, is the reading of already written pieces, the dissecting, analyzing, and criticizing of written pieces. And though it is not always concrete (somebody please tell that to an undergraduate British Literature professor I had) it is concrete enough to come up with satisfying answers to assuage the ever-analyzing minds of literature buffs.
Composition, as I am beginning to understand from our readings and our class discussions, is an all together different beast. We discussed theorists and at least 14 aims of discourse (scientific, dialectic, rhetorical, poetic, rational, emotional, ethical, technical, creative, expository, descriptive, persuasive, narrative, analysis... and I didn't start taking notes until about 20 minutes in). Try fitting that into a freshman composition class (or a fifth grade writing curriculum). Teaching writing is not easy. I love to write and I love to teach writing, but I reflect a lot on my teaching and wonder often how effective I am. I'm not talking about test scores either, I'm talking about teaching my student to write. There is no concrete answer for writing (outside of the language aspects). Writing is subjective, personal, emotive, in the moment, opinionated, and countless other adjectives. "Composition...provide second class academic citizens with a way out of their academic 'ghetto'" (North, 14). You can't fit those on a rubric and the state sure as heck cannot authentically assess those qualities.
I can understand why there has been trouble defining Composition and its aim and I agree that "in English teacher we have relied too long on our best guesses" (North, 16). I am taking this class to find my definition of the aims of Composition and I am tired of guessing.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
James Berlin's "Contemporary Composition"
Berlins theory about writer, reality, audience, and language work well into writing curriculum and the teaching of writing. From his descriptions, I consider my self a New Rhetorician. "The New Rhetoric sees the writer as a creator of meaning, a shaper of reality..." (Berlin, 267). I can see the significance of this theory both as a teacher of writing and as a writer myself. Writing to me is the imparting of information (or in Berlin's voice, shaping of ) in a creative, unique, interesting, succinct manner using a common language that can be understood by the average reader. These elements can be present in any form of writing, fulfilling any aim whether it's informational, persuasive, expository, literary, or poetic.
Berlin mentions the usage of metaphors to "capture what is unique in each personal vision" (Berlin, 263). Teaching students the proper and effective usage of figurative language lets them put a personal touch and their own "voice" into their writing while giving their audience references by which to make personal connections. With practice, encouragement, and guidance, students can learn how to make writing their own, thereby eliminating much of the "dismay some students feel about writing" (Berlin, 256). In my experience, as soon as a student's guard is down, as soon as a pin hole is poked in his/her preconceived negative ideas about writing, great strides can be made. Writing is not all about rules, spelling, and punctuation. "Writing is making words behave the way you want them to" (Berlin, 267).
This leads back into the beginning of Berlin's paper and his statement "differences in teaching approaches...located in the diverging definitions of the composing process itself" (Berlin, 256). I am going to add to this statement. The different opinions teachers hold about the aims of writing and their own personal feelings about writing affect student attitudes about writing and their writing ability. Students, regardless of age or experience, are astute and can easily read teachers' body language, facial expression, and even open opposition to writing. This happens when teachers focus only on the technical and grammatical aspects of writing. The possibility of individuality, creativity, and expression in writing adds interest and even excitement to the writing process and keep students, and teachers, from getting too bored. This boredom leads to the dismay Berlin mentions and leads young writers to write only by assignment and only for grades, thus limiting the opportunity to grow as writers.
As a teacher, I encourage my students to write by writing right next to them, showing my own examples of "juicy" language (what we call descriptive language), letting them see me struggle to come up with ideas and work hard to edit and revise. They know I love to write and they are encouraged by it and that initial encouragement is all the pin hole I need in their armor to open the world of opportunity with them.
Berlin mentions the usage of metaphors to "capture what is unique in each personal vision" (Berlin, 263). Teaching students the proper and effective usage of figurative language lets them put a personal touch and their own "voice" into their writing while giving their audience references by which to make personal connections. With practice, encouragement, and guidance, students can learn how to make writing their own, thereby eliminating much of the "dismay some students feel about writing" (Berlin, 256). In my experience, as soon as a student's guard is down, as soon as a pin hole is poked in his/her preconceived negative ideas about writing, great strides can be made. Writing is not all about rules, spelling, and punctuation. "Writing is making words behave the way you want them to" (Berlin, 267).
This leads back into the beginning of Berlin's paper and his statement "differences in teaching approaches...located in the diverging definitions of the composing process itself" (Berlin, 256). I am going to add to this statement. The different opinions teachers hold about the aims of writing and their own personal feelings about writing affect student attitudes about writing and their writing ability. Students, regardless of age or experience, are astute and can easily read teachers' body language, facial expression, and even open opposition to writing. This happens when teachers focus only on the technical and grammatical aspects of writing. The possibility of individuality, creativity, and expression in writing adds interest and even excitement to the writing process and keep students, and teachers, from getting too bored. This boredom leads to the dismay Berlin mentions and leads young writers to write only by assignment and only for grades, thus limiting the opportunity to grow as writers.
As a teacher, I encourage my students to write by writing right next to them, showing my own examples of "juicy" language (what we call descriptive language), letting them see me struggle to come up with ideas and work hard to edit and revise. They know I love to write and they are encouraged by it and that initial encouragement is all the pin hole I need in their armor to open the world of opportunity with them.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Kinneavy's "The Basic Aims of Discourse"
To be quite honest, the first time I read this paper I thought that I was in over my head. I could not wrap my mind around Kinneavy's focus or point and did not recognize the authors and/0r theorists to which he was referring.
After a good night's rest and a Stewart Smalleyesq reaffirmation, I tackled it again...only to find the information slightly more understandable and the point hazy, but visible.
In his conclusion, however, I am able to find the pertinence in the world of education and ignore my ignorance of rhetorical history and theory. Though my experience in teaching writing is relatively short, seven years, I have noticed a shift in philosophy of the writers of the writing curriculum recently that seems to relate to one of Kinneavy's statements, no composition program can afford to neglect any of these basic aims of discourse (Kinneavy, 137). Curriculum and school administration have encouraged teachers to treat writing as a cross-curricular activity, thus fulfilling some of the requirements to teach "different" aims of discourse at the same time as fitting more writing time into an already saturated curriculum.
I agree with this approach because students need to be taught (or, to work in Berlin's thoughts, given the opportunity to learn) how to write in different situations, about varying topics, and for different purposes. A great example of this is teaching students how to respond to literature. They make personal connections to their reading that first show understanding of the text (essential to our results driven, test-happy focus) but more importantly enhance their comprehension of the reading using a higher level of thinking. The best part is, students who "hate" to write (or in Berlin's more poetic voice: the dismay students display about writing [Berlin, 256]) don't realize they are writing because it is a reading assignment. In social studies, when asked to complete an essay, they are "tricked" into writing an informative or perhaps even a persuasive piece. Mathematics offers the chance for students to describe processes. Then finally, in writing class, we can write poetically or expressively. Through cross-curricular activities, students are given the opportunity to hit most of Kinneavy's aims of discourse.
In his conclusion, Kinneavy discusses the negative effects of not addressing each the "natural" aims of discourse and here is where I would like to add my own, that I already alluded to. By making writing too technical, too much about rules and processes, too much about fulfilling obligations (grading, portfolios, rubrics), we are turning students away from it. Writing needs to be presented as a natural learning aid, but it also needs to be presented as a fun, exciting, worthwhile activity that can be performed even when it's not assigned by a teacher for a grade! Teachers of writing should model writing, both the technical aspects and the fun aspects, using professional language as well as metaphorical language (Berlin, 263) and allow students to see the wonderful worlds they can visit through writing.
So my own basic aim of discourse is to teach (sorry Berlin) truths about the world, the technical, professional, informational, expressional (is that a word?), and allow each writer, both student and professional alike, to discover their own aim of discourse.
After a good night's rest and a Stewart Smalleyesq reaffirmation, I tackled it again...only to find the information slightly more understandable and the point hazy, but visible.
In his conclusion, however, I am able to find the pertinence in the world of education and ignore my ignorance of rhetorical history and theory. Though my experience in teaching writing is relatively short, seven years, I have noticed a shift in philosophy of the writers of the writing curriculum recently that seems to relate to one of Kinneavy's statements, no composition program can afford to neglect any of these basic aims of discourse (Kinneavy, 137). Curriculum and school administration have encouraged teachers to treat writing as a cross-curricular activity, thus fulfilling some of the requirements to teach "different" aims of discourse at the same time as fitting more writing time into an already saturated curriculum.
I agree with this approach because students need to be taught (or, to work in Berlin's thoughts, given the opportunity to learn) how to write in different situations, about varying topics, and for different purposes. A great example of this is teaching students how to respond to literature. They make personal connections to their reading that first show understanding of the text (essential to our results driven, test-happy focus) but more importantly enhance their comprehension of the reading using a higher level of thinking. The best part is, students who "hate" to write (or in Berlin's more poetic voice: the dismay students display about writing [Berlin, 256]) don't realize they are writing because it is a reading assignment. In social studies, when asked to complete an essay, they are "tricked" into writing an informative or perhaps even a persuasive piece. Mathematics offers the chance for students to describe processes. Then finally, in writing class, we can write poetically or expressively. Through cross-curricular activities, students are given the opportunity to hit most of Kinneavy's aims of discourse.
In his conclusion, Kinneavy discusses the negative effects of not addressing each the "natural" aims of discourse and here is where I would like to add my own, that I already alluded to. By making writing too technical, too much about rules and processes, too much about fulfilling obligations (grading, portfolios, rubrics), we are turning students away from it. Writing needs to be presented as a natural learning aid, but it also needs to be presented as a fun, exciting, worthwhile activity that can be performed even when it's not assigned by a teacher for a grade! Teachers of writing should model writing, both the technical aspects and the fun aspects, using professional language as well as metaphorical language (Berlin, 263) and allow students to see the wonderful worlds they can visit through writing.
So my own basic aim of discourse is to teach (sorry Berlin) truths about the world, the technical, professional, informational, expressional (is that a word?), and allow each writer, both student and professional alike, to discover their own aim of discourse.
Friday, January 18, 2008
First blog
Wow, I feel like either like a Hollywood star...or a geeky teenage tecky. Yeah, probably closer to the geek. Hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
