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.
No comments:
Post a Comment