Beating Us Down...Exercise in Reflection and Change

The beauty of the blog is that I can play with the genre of the journal and infuse it with some academic elements of logic and support as I try to get my thoughts in order, and like Williams, mess around with and challenge convention, to a degree. In other words, I can ramble and skip from one subject to another without too much worry about criticism and poor grades for convoluted writing: stream of consciousness, baby!

Thus far it seems that we are being beaten down in order to make us more reflective and better teachers. I came to this interesting and depressing conclusion while reading the intro to William's article and reflecting on the Shaaughnessy article (the Bizzell article seems also to take a few jabs at teachers by indicating this element of focus on error and writer preparedness). I have to remind myself that these articles are geared toward academia and college teachers, but it doesn't lesson the impact. I also assume, hopefully accurately, that we are reflective teachers and adapt to our students rather than simply teach prescriptively. It seems to be common sense, and that in order to be effective, we must be critical. As if my own self-doubt and severe criticism of my teaching is not enough, I have to read these articles that seem to be bent on putting us in our place and taking this accountability thing quite far.

I am normally not a sensitive individual in that I can easily handle criticism and suggestion, however, when teachers are expected to conform to four different levels of growth and development in teaching, then we have something to worry about. I realize the intention behind Shaughnessy's article, because it is simply common sense among teachers to be reflective and to adapt strategies accordingly: teacher trial and error is a great way to achieve student success. If it works, keep on keeping on, and if it doesn't, then find another way!

I can see how Guarding the Tower works, since there are those who fail to realize the dynamic nature of language and the idea that language and usage rules change. William's reference to Zinsser's vehement and personal response to grammatical errors illustrates this. Speaking of Williams, I got a kick out of the "errors" in his article. I did notice them and wondered if they were intentional. This little approach made up for the ridiculous tables and the perception of "math English" where instead of content and solid organization and support, we are counting points for every little grammatical and mechanical detail put forth: "four points off for using 'I'".

I can see some sense in being critical of the current system of teaching language and writing and addressing "error" in written and spoken language since language often assists in producing and perpetuating elitism: Estella's reference to Pip's use of Jack instead of Knave along with Scout's chastisement of Calpurnia for speaking "like them" even though she knows better helps to solidify the idea of language and place. So, I can see good reason for addressing language and error in more than simply the black and white follow the standard type of approach.

We gotta love this debate between the idea of language of academia and home "dialect" as Bizzell calls it.  I figure that as long as you can tell the difference between the two and use either appropriately, then you will be alright.  I've been known to throw a few "ain'ts" around when away from skoo.  This doesn't take away the perception that language determines or reflects place in society.  How do we get around this?   Ebonics, Country, Hillbilly, Hick, Bass Ackwards, Snobbish, Stuck Up, etc:  these are words and phrases that are thrown around when referring to spoken languages.  Do we simply need to determine a purpose and recognize that different people speak differently according to background, and then try to teach the standard so that we all have a common way to communicate clearly without judgement?  

Where do we draw the line when it comes to priorities in writing?  Easy:  Discuss and know purpose when it comes to writing.  Consider audience.  Intent and audience seem to be the key elements.  Know the rules and when to apply them.  It never hurts to get along.  The fear is that we lose our identity with the loss of language and dialect:  this is true in many respects, however, we don't need to get into this colonialism discussion; that's a whole nother debate and topic.

The Williams article reminded me of an incident where I met a parent of a future student he summer before school started.  He know that his daughter would be in my TAG English class and quipped, " there are not split infinitives in our house!"  Talk about the focus on error debate and trying to determine priorities in how we approach writing and the rules of grammar and mechanics.  All I can say is that it is up to us "To Boldly Go" where now English teacher has ever gone....

It all comes down to B A L A N C E and P R I O R I T Y.  Don't get stuck only the rules of writing.  Look at content and form as an indicator of knowledge, intelligence, and potential.  We need to stay sane while reading papers.  Determine the focus of your critique and stick with it.  It is not always about punctuation and grammar, because a perfectly punctuated paper is nothing without substance.   Relax, and find ways to instruct effectively:  Trial and Error.

If we keep our eye on the prize and not let ourselves get too wrapped up in all of the philosophy behind teaching writing, we might get out sane and alive. 

Easier Said Than Done.  

Writers Vs. Academics?

Aren't the goals of the writer and academic similar? I may be a bit naive when it comes to this sort of thing, but I see the writer and academic with the common goal(s) of inquiry, exploration and discovery.



One of my PEOPLE students wants to learn how to be creative and original in her essay or "academic" writing. I had asked the question regarding what students would like to get out of the Rising 11 writing class. Among other things, there desires included mechanics and structure. Only the one student asked about creativity. Many of these students see writing primarily as an academic or utilitarian activity; there is no other write except for the teacher. Wow, this is disheartening.



My approach to teaching writing in the classroom includes that attept at including both academic and exploratory(for lack of a better term) writing. However, the articles presented by Bartholomae and Elbow really make me think hard on these subjects and their definitions. Academic vs. Writer? What the heck. Doesn't one serve assist the other? Is academic writing simply using basic conventions of communication devoid of agenda and therefore style, structure, and content? Is writing only self-expression with the "power" only being in the hands of the writer where it is up the writer to determine whether "a sword is just a sword"? These are good questions to ponder. These three articles, although essentially silly in my narrow scope of the academic world, caused me to reflect closely on how I teach reading and writing.



I see writing as a tool for communicating, as a method of catharsis, as a form of exploration, as a way of processing, as an element of thinking, and as a vehicle for self-expression. Who is to say, other than the "academics", that academic writing can't contain elements of writing devoid of expression, style, form, exploration? My wife teaches math. In her math class they study IMP, integrated math program, where part of the curriculum is to write out the thought process in solving problems. This inherently will become "academic" simply because of the subject, math. There are few creative written pieces on the subject of math. At any rate, the writing by her students often becomes personal and reflective, yet it also retains the element of academics referred to by our authors.



The subject of reading comes up in the articles. I tell my students first and foremost: READ. If they want to become better writers with solid organizational skills, strong mechanics, and an eye/ear for good sentence structure and style, then they must read. I disagree partially with Elbow's contention that writers should look primarily at their own writing along with that of their peers. They should look at much more than that, including objective academic writing, creative writing, journalistic writing, basic reporting, etc. This exposure not only strengthens a student's writing, but it also encourages more reading and critical analysis of that reading: thinking about what they read is a mantra I pound into my students' heads. Talk about beating a dead horse.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Honestly, due to technical difficulties, I had to cut this one short because I pushed the wrong button and cut off, without saving, some pretty good conclusions. Stay tuned for the second version of those conclusions as I mull over what I had written before I lost it!

First One

Okay, people! Here is the first ever weblog entry from yours truly! As this class session plays out, I hope to learn much from your teaching wisdom and experience. If you don't have wisdom, I'll defer to your experience. If you don't have experience, then I'll simply defer to your charm. Here's to some good learning this summer session.